Frontline - "Climate of Doubt" PBS 10/23/2012

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Disappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks.

Since that's what they ARE, what's your problem?

Is this how you would define me, John?

Are you a "denier" then?

I'm asking whether you would define me as such. Many do. Billvon seems to find me to be a bit of neither.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

So basically, what you are saying is that it was an ad hominem attack on one side of the politics of climate change. Revisionist, too - do a search in these forums on climate change and you'll see that the history of debate well predates the "Tea Party"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Did you watch it yet?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

So basically, what you are saying is that it was an ad hominem attack on one side of the politics of climate change. Revisionist, too - do a search in these forums on climate change and you'll see that the history of debate well predates the "Tea Party"

It was a look at how a very small minority, with proper funding, could sway national policy. If the 911 truther's were well funded, they would probably have had the same effect.

I cant remember many (if any) GOP incumbents getting tossed out before the tea party became big.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Did you watch it yet?

No. but I will.

And yes, I am going in with pre-prejudices based upon what is being written about it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It was a look at how a very small minority, with proper funding, could sway national policy.

Doesn't this describe NASA GISS?

Quote

I cant remember many (if any) GOP incumbents getting tossed out before the tea party became big.

I do. It was 2006. Tea Party didn't become big until around 2009. To suggest that climate skepticism wasn't a big thing until then is provably false. It was a big deal when McCain supported some AGW ideas - which led to backlash because of the massive number of people who didn't support it.

That's the revisionist part. Heartland has done climate conferences since 2008. In January of that year, realclimate posted "What if you held a conference and no (real) scientists came?" Once again, finding there to be "real" scientists (those who agree with them) and not-real scientists (those who disagree).

See what I mean? If history needs to be revised to prove a point, the point is invalid.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

It was a look at how a very small minority, with proper funding, could sway national policy.

Doesn't this describe NASA GISS?

You're equating peer reviewed science with business interests?

The science in neutral. That's pretty much the definition of science.

Business interests are almost never neutral.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You're equating peer reviewed science with business interests?

Answer the question - is a computer model predicting future results science? They are peer reviewed, too.

Is a computer model "science?" Or is a computer model a "hypothesis?"

Quote

The science in neutral.

Science is neutral. Advocacy is not. Check the post about "real scientists." That's not science. That's advocacy. It's politics. And the politics and science are pretty difficult to separate.

Quote

That's pretty much the definition of science

The definition of "science" is whether observations show the prediction to be true. Ergo, any "prediction" that has not been validated is not science unless it has been previously validated with prior experiment under the same conditions.

Prediction - the universe will continue to expand and get colder and colder. That is not a prediction that is a law. Barring a quantum shift.

Prediction - sea level may rise two meters by 2100. First, that isn't even a prediction because "may" is involved. It's not scientific. It's advocacy and rhetoric - which is not science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Answer the question - is a computer model predicting future results science?

Yes. We use them all the time. It's how we are able to send a spacecraft from the Earth to Mars and land it with a fair amount of accuracy.

If you're attempting to say science can not make predictions based on models, then I have to say, your argument is without merit. There is not a technological device you interact with on a daily basis which was designed in the last 50 years that wasn't designed using science based modeling. Everything from your parachute to your computer to your MP3 players are all designed using science based models of aerodynamics, artificial intelligence, acoustics.

Your argument is almost laughably obtuse.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yes. We use them all the time. It's how we are able to send a spacecraft from the Earth to Mars and land it with a fair amount of accuracy.

I addressed that. it's applying a physical law in a known fashion that has been validated.

Quote

If you're attempting to say science can not make predictions based on models, then I have to say, your argument is without merit.

Not what I'm saying. It can in many, many way. Climate models, on the other hand, have NEVER been validated except by statistical methods. We won't be able to validate a climate model until it runs its course.

Have you seen the election models, Paul? Modeling who will win the election? How accurate are they? Not very, because they have millions of individual interactions that must be estimated.

The greater the number of variables to be estimated, the lower the reliability. Climate is a thousand orders of magnitude more complex than predicting an orbit. Also note that even an orbital prediction runs into the N body problem. A 2 body system has been completely solved. But n>3 becomes mathematically random.

if you think that the mathematical relationships in climate are as simple as the mathematical relationships in getting from earth to Mars then your position is acutely laughable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

I see. You believe in scientific modeling then. Just not -this- scientific- modeling because it can't predict far "enough" out into the future for your personal liking.

So, then, is that what this argument shall be about; Zeno's Paradox? Splitting the "not far enough" ad infinitum?

Silly.

Climate science is like all science. A person takes a stab at "if this, then that", runs tests and experiments to see "if this, really does lead to that" and then retweaks it for the next go 'round and the next and the next and the next after that.

Once the results of hundreds of experiments done by hundreds of scientists all lead to the same conclusion . . . what then?

Do you throw the entire thing out because a small percentage guessed wrong in their individual and particular "if this, then that" experiment even though the vast majority came to the exact same conclusions by many different means?

No. That's just silly.

There absolutely is consensus in the scientific community about climate change, its cause and what is almost certainly the ultimate result if nothing is done to stop or at least slow it. The scientists who have reached this conclusion aren't colluding in some vast conspiracy to all have their numbers say the same thing though wildly different means. They all come to the same conclusion because that's what the data tells them. THAT is science.

Contrast this with the denier movement.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quote

You're equating peer reviewed science with business interests?

Answer the question - is a computer model predicting future results science? They are peer reviewed, too.

Is a computer model "science?" Or is a computer model a "hypothesis?"

Hypotheses are part and parcel of science.

You should stick to advocacy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

There absolutely is consensus in the scientific community about climate change, its cause and what is almost certainly the ultimate result if nothing is done to stop or at least slow it. The scientists who have reached this conclusion aren't colluding in some vast conspiracy to all have their numbers say the same thing though wildly different means. They all come to the same conclusion because that's what the data tells them. THAT is science.

Contrast this with the denier movement.

Quade, can you please address this Joel Rogers video from above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bh3jWqiUw0

Regardless of the BS quoted from you above, even the "God" of the American Cancer (Progressivism) says you could shut down the entire economy, EVERYTHING, and it will do nothing.

And his full statements clearly show that Cap and Trade, CO2 regulation, is all about money and power... it is Agenda 21.

Its about control, not environmental awareness.

If you won't speak about it, does that mean that you support Agenda 21?

Or are you too much of a coward to address my post and continue with the same "its science", "there's a consensus" crap. That holds about as much weight as your Casimir effect. Which you were wrong about as well.

Edit: sp

[dmcoco84 5]

Behind the Green Mask

http://www.amazon.com/BEHIND-THE-GREEN-MASK-Agenda/dp/0615494544

Here Quade... do some reading, and from a Liberal Democrat.

No, not a Progressive... as she says, a 1890's liberal democrat.

Ya know, right before that first Progressive president came into office... Teddy.

[quade 4]

Wow, you're really making a lot of sense today. Hopefully we can get your thoughts down on paper. You might win some sort of Nobel Prize in conspiracy theory fiction. Just toss a little nano-thermite on that baby and I'm almost certain you've got yourself a winner.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I see. You believe in scientific modeling then. Just not -this- scientific- modeling because it can't predict far "enough" out into the future for your personal liking.

No. I have doubts about scientific models that calculate multiple trillions of estimated relationships. I have little doubt on modeling of science that has been validated in the past. If I have two rocks and I add two rocks, I can safely predict that I will have four rocks. Why? That relationship has been clearly established over the eons. I have no problem modeling trajectories.


Why don’t I treat climate predictions with the same certainty? Because not even a “real climate scientist” is certain of his/her predictions. Another way of saying, "sea level may rise 2 meters by 2100" is "sea level may not rise 2 meters." The prediction is not falsifiable because it is not a prediction. “Paul Quade may become an attorney.” If you do not become an attorney I am not wrong because I never said you would.

My argument is not what you say it is.

Quote

Climate science is like all science. A person takes a stab at "if this, then that", runs tests and experiments to see "if this, really does lead to that" and then retweaks it for the next go 'round and the next and the next and the next after that.

Right. Run the climate model. See results in 70 years. Did it work?

Or, tweak it and tweak it all the time as new data comes out. What’s that mean? If it’s being tweaked it means that there are assumptions that have been falsified. The kinks are still being ironed out. GCMs are still prototypes.

Here’s something else – climate scientists should be frequently surprised. Because scientists are frequently surprised. That's science, Paul. Scientists operate at the threshold of human understanding.

Weather forecasts process information at 2 billion calculations per second to model a near-term forecast. Climate models require orders of magnitude more calculations based upon estimations. And no climate model has ever been validated by observational data. As opposed to, say, a trip to the moon, where the modeling has been validated for centuries.

Quote

Once the results of hundreds of experiments done by hundreds of scientists all lead to the same conclusion . . . what then?

We have to wait about 70 years for the experiment to be finished. Right now we have hundreds of predictions that are part of the experiment. We don’t have raw data to confirm or falsify. Science in progress.

Quote

Do you throw the entire thing out because a small percentage guessed wrong in their individual and particular "if this, then that" experiment even though the vast majority came to the exact same conclusions by many different means?

Nobody should be concluding a damned thing until the data are in. That’s why they are predictions. Do you know the difference between a prediction and a conclusion? A conclusion is either present (I conclude) or past (I concluded) tense. “I conclude that Paul Quade will be a lawyer.” As a writer, you can see the irreconcilable conflict in that statement. “I conclude Obama will win the election.” No. I PREDICT he will win.

What you are using as an example isn’t science. It’s no different from a bible thumper.

Quote

No. That's just silly.

A prime objective of Apollo 12 was a pinpoint landing. The trajectory guys at NASA were so confident that Pete Conrad had trouble taking them seriously. A trajectory guy named Dave Reed asked Conrad where he wanted to be. Apollo 11 had been 4 miles off target so Conrad had his doubts so Conrad picked a spot. After a few simulations Pete went to Reed and asked for a new spot a few hundred feet to the side. Reed started working out the changes. Conrad was flabbergasted and said, “Target me for the center of Surveyor Crater.” Reed responded, “You got it, babe.”

Now, is this the sort of confidence seen from climate scientists? Nope. Because they themselves aren’t willing to bet their own farm on certitude. They simply don’t have the certainty, so all predictions are qualified in “may” or “might.”

When the science and mathematics are known and confirmed, and this is the certitude that can be reached. We test it to find the laws of nature. In GSMs, there are widely divergent results. Why? Because each has their own code. Each has its own values for relationships. Because we do not KNOW what these relationships are. (what effect does land use in Lima, Peru have upon river discharge into the eastern Pacific and freshwater mixing?) We only have estimates. And statisticians are needed to put a check on selection bias. They are based on our present understanding, which is constantly evolving.

Quote

There absolutely is consensus in the scientific community about climate change

Yes. There’s no consensus about the effect. There’s consensus that I am aging. There’s no consensus on whether I’ll reach the age of 80 or what I will look like by then.

Quote

what is almost certainly the ultimate result if nothing is done to stop or at least slow it.

Hold on, pilgrim. Now you’ve gone where climate scientists themselves fear to tread.

What is the consensus on the ultimate result if nothing is done to stop it. By this I want:
(1) Time frame of ultimate result – when will the ultimate result occur;
(2) Ultimate result – what will it be;
(3) Effects on humans of the ultimate result.
(4) Observational data that shows this ultimate result.

This task is quite difficult, Paul. You went beyond puffery and rhetoric and made a statement that will either be confirmed or falsified. Let the science begin.

Here’s my belief: climate change is real. Climate is warming. Human activities play a role in it. But the effects of anthropogenic climate change will be marginal on human activity. I don’t have the data to support it. It’s a prediction. I’ll be proven right or wrong in about 70 years because no data exists to make a conclusion.

Quote

The scientists who have reached this conclusion aren't colluding in some vast conspiracy

Again, they have no business concluding anything. A conclusion is the end. They are predicting. A prediction and a conclusion are separate things – actually the first and last steps of science. Making step 1 the final step doesn’t make science. It’s anathema to it.

Plus – I never said there is a conspiracy, just a close and exclusive group of people who are united in thought and values who are what would be expected of a group of likeminded individuals. Groupthink is nothing new. Scientists are certainly not immune from it.

Quote

to all have their numbers say the same thing though wildly different means

That statement is provably false because climate scientists all reach different results. Sure, they all lean on the “AGW is happening side” and I don’t disagree. But the magnitudes of the results are wildly divergent, ain’t they?

Do we scrap all of those models? No. We test all of them. They are presently being tested. We’ll have the observational data to confirm them in the next 70-90 years.

And of course, if they all reach the same result through wildly divergent means, now we gotta learn which measn is correct?

Quote

They all come to the same conclusion because that's what the data tells them.

What kind of data? Raw data? Processed data? Reanalysis output? Computer data?

We know it’s not raw data. We know it’s not processed data. It’s computer data. The sort of computer data that can get a probe from earth to Mars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

You keep using “conclusion.” It’s “prediction.”

Quote

THAT is science.

I disagree that everyone agreeing on a prediction is science. I disagree that a computer model is science. They are PART of the science. The scientific process has been in existence since Kepler. You can call me a reactionary, but I resist changes to the scientific process.

Science is a PROCESS. A process to provide truths about things. The Big Bang was an idea – it took decades until Penzius and Wilson provided the OBSERVATIONAL data to confirm it and conclude that there was a big bang (yes, I know it was a misnomer). Before Penzius and Wilson observed it, cosmic background microwave radiation was PREDICTED – not concluded. P&W found it. Prediction confirmed. Conclusion – big bang. Science is a process.

Higgs boson was predicted. The signature was predicted. Nobody would say they found it until the signature was observed. Conclusion – we saw what we predicted. Conclusion – we see evidence of Higgs boson. Science is a process.

I’ll flip is and state that a key to the scientific process is “falsifiability.” Are climate models falsifiable right now? Ask a denier and the denier will say, “Yes. No climate model predicted an increase in Antarctic ice.” Or “Yes. No climate model predicted a pause in warming in excess of a decade.”

The alarmist response? “These models increase with accuracy as time goes on because the forcings overcome the signal.” Meaning that, according to the climate modeler, the models are not falsifiable until the data is there at the conclusion. Ergo, it is a hypothesis. A prediction. Not a “conclusion.”

Which do you pick? If a climate model cannot be falsified right now, then it is “science in progress.” That’s my stance. As yet, nobody has even bothered to address this issue with me. I’ve brought it up for years – all we have are predictions that are “based on science.” So is Star Trek’s “Heisenberg compensator.” Based on science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hypotheses are part and parcel of science.

Thank you for confirming this. Hypothesis isn't science anymore than a leg is human.

Science is a process. What Quade is doing is confusing "prediction" with "conclusion."

You would no doubt agree that the two should not be mixed. that's what religion does.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Disappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks.

Since that's what they ARE, what's your problem?

Is this how you would define me, John?

Are you a "denier" then?

I'm asking whether you would define me as such. Many do. Billvon seems to find me to be a bit of neither.

Since you're not a knee jerk denier, then that's not how I define you.

You just think like a lawyer and not like a scientist.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, I do. My experience is in seeing the difference between fact and rhetoric. I want to know the basis of a person's knowledge.

I’ve got a case where a guy ended up in the hospital with Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome. He had been exposed to insecticide. She is linking the two. I myself cannot see evidence to support this link as her deceased husband was on a medication that causes exactly what he had.

I challenge my own foundation to arguments. I want the foundation of my beliefs challenged. You’ve done so and gotten me to change my mind. So has billvon and others.

Yes, I view the world in a way that doesn’t endear. But I ask people to show me the proof.

Quade saying “scientists concluded” what is going to happen in 100 years. That’s nonsense. It’s a prediction and I do not think a scientist would disagree – if it was science at play.

I see science. But I also see lawyering. I recognize lawyering when I see it. And much like scientists don’t like it when lawyers enter their hallowed ground, lawyers like me get pissed off when scientists act like lawyers.

Climate science has entered my arena. It doesn’t belong here. When I’ve got a guy as bright and articulate as Quade calling a prediction a conclusion that’s my world. And regardless of the fact that I am no scientist, I do have a great respect for science, and I have a problem when it is perverted.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quade saying “scientists concluded” what is going to happen in 100 years. That’s nonsense. It’s a prediction and I do not think a scientist would disagree – if it was science at play.

So if scientists predict a total eclipse of the Sun on May 1, 2079 visible in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, you would dismiss that as a mere hypothesis and not science?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So if scientists predict a total eclipse of the Sun on May 1, 2079 visible in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, you would dismiss that as a mere hypothesis and not science?

Nope. Because the science of that prediction has been repeatedly validated and the variables involved are earth orbit and moon orbit.

Much like predicting it will occur 14.765 days after the moon is full. We are now dealing with laws and a minimum of interactions. There is no judgment involved - just math.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quote

So if scientists predict a total eclipse of the Sun on May 1, 2079 visible in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, you would dismiss that as a mere hypothesis and not science?

Nope. Because the science of that prediction has been repeatedly validated and the variables involved are earth orbit and moon orbit.

Much like predicting it will occur 14.765 days after the moon is full. We are now dealing with laws and a minimum of interactions. There is no judgment involved - just math.

Physics is involved, it's not "just math".

Climate models are "just math" following your logic. Lots of numbers crunched in a computer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Oh, but since we can not predict as of this very second and with 100% certainty the path of Apophis 99942 39 years from now . . . all Newtonian calculations must be tossed out because clearly they're "not science"!

Damn, this "not science" stuff sure is silly. I mean, it's not like it's the end of the world though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Physics is involved, it's not "just math".

Climate models are "just math" following your logic. Lots of numbers crunched in a computer.

Physics. Chemistry. Oceanography. Geology. Statistics. It’s all involved.

And all described by mathematics, isn’t it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Oh, but since we can not predict as of this very second and with 100% certainty the path of Apophis 99942 39 years from now . . . all Newtonian calculations must be tossed out because clearly they're "not science"!

Damn, this "not science" stuff sure is silly. I mean, it's not like it's the end of the world though.

You're going reduction ad absurdum. I've already told you what I think of predictions. Prediction - the universe will end as a very very cold, dark, empty place. I'm pretty certain of it. Why? Because of thermodynamics. It's the law. Three, actually. first law - you can't win. Second law - you can't break even. Third law - you can't get out of the game.

Prediction? In the long term - we're fucked. Until an exception to the laws of thermodynamics is found, it's rather simple.

Now add climate. Long term forecast? We're fucked. The laws of thermodynamics tell us this. Near term? Well, that's a lot more complicated.

We cannot predict with certainty apophis' orbit. Because we can't yet measure it precisely enough. We have probabilities. I have a prediction: Apophis may go through a gravitational keyhole resulting in a pretty rough Friday the 13th. We have probabilities, and even with something as SIMPLE as Newtonian physics - we aren't sure.

And you are saying that we are more certain of climate in 100 years than we are about the orbit or an asteroid? I say we are far more certain about Apophis - and we aren't 100% certain of that.

That's why there are "real climate scientists" and then there's everyone else. Climate science is extremely complicated.

My wife is hotter than your wife.