Academic cool on warming

  • Thread starter Captain Compassion
  • Start date
C

Captain Compassion

Guest
Academic cool on warming
Brad Norington | April 09, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate
change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he
challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to
humanity.

Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was
"out of his mind" by some in the media after writing that the science
of global warming "doesn't seem to stack up".

Declaring global warming might not be such an important issue,
Professor Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of
Australia this month that counter measures such as carbon trading were
likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger
evidence of a crisis.

The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called
A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public
attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to
orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.

He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly
ignored or attacked because "scientist activists" from a
quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that "the
science is settled" and "the debate is over".

Professor Aitkin is a former vice-chancellor at the University of
Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a
distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and
Macquarie University.

Although not a scientist, he has brought his critical approach as an
experienced academic accustomed to testing theories to a debate he
says so far lacks clear evidence.

Professor Aitkin's speech cast strong doubt on the Rudd Government's
plan to impose significant limits on carbon emissions as the key to
combating climate change, while the developing economies of China and
India become the world's biggest polluters. "I doubt the proposed
extraordinary policies will actually happen," he said. "China and
India will not reduce their own use of carbon."

According to Professor Aitkin, attempts to set carbon-use levels in
Europe, to be emulated by Australia, have been laughable because of
absurd errors involved in allocating quotas and the potential for
fraud. He believes carbon trading will lead to rorts, and that the
"bubble will burst" on enthusiasm for urgently containing the
carbon-producing effects of burning coal and oil.

The story of the human impact on climate change, which Professor
Aitkin calls Anthropogenic Global Warming, "doesn't seem to stack up
as the best science", according to his own research.

Despite thousands of scientists allegedly having "consensus" on global
warming, he says there is an absence of convincing data: "Put simply,
despite all the hype and models and the catastrophic predictions, it
seems to me that we human beings barely understand 'climate'. It is
too vast a domain."

Much of the evidence of global warming, he says, is based on computer
modelling that does not take account of variables, and does not cover
the whole planet.

Professor Aitkin calls himself a global warming "agnostic", and his
comments are a direct challenge to the orthodoxy successfully promoted
by influential figures such as former Australian of the Year Tim
Flannery, whose scientific expertise is paleontology, despite his
popular writings on climate change.

The basis of the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the Rudd Government, is
unvalidated models that cannot provide evidence of anything, Professor
Aitkin argues. But he says the Rudd Government is among policy-makers
trapped, willingly or unwillingly, by the world view of climate change
campaigners who take a "quasi-religious view" that the dangers of
global warming cannot be doubted.

Professor Aitkin told The Australian last night that Kevin Rudd's
climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, was "a captive" because of the
riding instructions he had been given to provide solutions that
accepted global warming as fact.

In his speech, he says: "The hard-heads may not buy the story, but
they do want to be elected or re-elected.

"Democratic governments facing elections are sensitive to popular
movements that could have an electoral effect. I am sure that it was
this electoral perception that caused the Howard government at the end
to move significantly towards Kyoto and indicate a preparedness to go
down the Kyoto path, as indeed the Labor Party had done earlier, and
Kevin Rudd did as soon as he was elected."

Professor Aitkin says the earth's atmosphere may be warming but, if
so, not by much and not in an alarming and unprecedented way.

"It is possible that the warming has a 'significant human influence',
to use the (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's) term, and
I do not dismiss the possibility.

"But there are other powerful possible causes that have nothing to do
with us."

He says an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide over the
past century is agreed, some of it due to fossil fuels, cement-making
and agriculture. However, normal production of CO2 is not known, and
it makes up only a tiny part of the atmosphere. "How does a small
increase in a very small component have such a large apparent effect?
The truth is that no one has yet shown that itdoes."

According to the professor, much of the inadequate policy-making on
climate change is based on "over-certainty in the absence of
convincing argument and data" and "over-reliance on computer models".

"While governments can never ignore what they see as popular feeling,
good policy cannot be based on moods," he says.

--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> Academic cool on warming
> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...
>
> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin


Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
of real science?

Namaste,
Sri Bodhi Prana
 
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bodhi@mail2bombay.com> wrote:

>On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> Academic cool on warming
>> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...
>>
>> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin

>
>Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
>of real science?
>

Oh no. I'm gonna listen to Al Gore.:(


--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
Sri Bodhi Prana wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> wrote:
>> Academic cool on warming
>> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...
>>
>> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin

>
> Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
> of real science?
>
> Namaste,
> Sri Bodhi Prana


Did you read the article? One of the most influential Australians who
supports Global Warming is a paleontologist.

Are you going to listen to a dinosaur hunter on GW?

The GW issue as an artifact of technological civilization is NOT settled.

--
Cheers
Bama Brian
Libertarian
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:31:29 -0400, Bama Brian
<eddyclay@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Sri Bodhi Prana wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Academic cool on warming
>>> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...
>>>
>>> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin

>>
>> Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
>> of real science?
>>
>> Namaste,
>> Sri Bodhi Prana

>
>Did you read the article? One of the most influential Australians who
>supports Global Warming is a paleontologist.
>
>Are you going to listen to a dinosaur hunter on GW?
>
>The GW issue as an artifact of technological civilization is NOT settled.


There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
less than 100 in the US.


--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Apr 9, 9:58 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>
> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Academic cool on warming
> >> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...

>
> >> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin

>
> >Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
> >of real science?

>
> Oh no. I'm gonna listen to Al Gore.:(


That would be a big mistake. You should pay attention to scientists on
matters of science.

Namaste,
Sri Bodhi Prana
 
On Apr 9, 10:31 am, Bama Brian <eddyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Sri Bodhi Prana wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Academic cool on warming
> >> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...

>
> >> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin

>
> > Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
> > of real science?

>
> > Namaste,
> > Sri Bodhi Prana

>
> Did you read the article? One of the most influential Australians who
> supports Global Warming is a paleontologist.


So what? I don't care about his opinion.

Namaste,
Sri Bodhi Prana
 
On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:

> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
> less than 100 in the US.


All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
have a Ph.D. in climatology.

Namaste,
Sri Bodi Prana
 
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:51:49 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bodhi@mail2bombay.com> wrote:

>On Apr 9, 9:58 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>>
>> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Academic cool on warming
>> >> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...

>>
>> >> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin

>>
>> >Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
>> >of real science?

>>
>> Oh no. I'm gonna listen to Al Gore.:(

>
>That would be a big mistake. You should pay attention to scientists on
>matters of science.
>

Al Gore is a scientist? I'm not sure that this is really science.

"Scientific predictions, based on statistics based on computer models.
Now that's real science." -- Captain Compassion


--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bodhi@mail2bombay.com> wrote:

>On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>
>> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
>> less than 100 in the US.

>
>All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
>physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
>have a Ph.D. in climatology.


It also helps to know all possible variables and be able to test the
model against actual outcomes.

"The strategies for making mathematical models for observed phenomena
have been evolving since ancient times. An organism-- physical,
biological, or social-- is observed in different states. This observed
system is the target of the modeling activity. Its states cannot
really be described by only a few observable parameters, but we
pretend that they can."-- Ralph Abraham and Christopher Shaw,
Dynamics: The Geometry of Behavior

--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Apr 10, 8:51 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>
> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >wrote:

>
> >> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
> >> less than 100 in the US.

>
> >All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
> >physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
> >have a Ph.D. in climatology.

>
> It also helps to know all possible variables and be able to test the
> model against actual outcomes.


Yes, and it does not take a degree in climatology to know what these
are.

> "The strategies for making mathematical models for observed phenomena
> have been evolving since ancient times. An organism-- physical,
> biological, or social-- is observed in different states. This observed
> system is the target of the modeling activity. Its states cannot
> really be described by only a few observable parameters, but we
> pretend that they can."-- Ralph Abraham and Christopher Shaw,
> Dynamics: The Geometry of Behavior


Yes, I have that book. It is excellent, and your quote does not say
what you think it does.

Sri Bodhi Prana
 
On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:51:49 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>
>
>
> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 9, 9:58 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>
> >> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Academic cool on warming
> >> >> Brad Norington | April 09, 2008http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?f...

>
> >> >> RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin

>
> >> >Is a social scientist. And you are going to listen to him on matters
> >> >of real science?

>
> >> Oh no. I'm gonna listen to Al Gore.:(

>
> >That would be a big mistake. You should pay attention to scientists on
> >matters of science.

>
> Al Gore is a scientist?


Pay attention, idiot. I never made such a claim.

Sri Bodhi Prana
 
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:18:59 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bodhi@mail2bombay.com> wrote:

>On Apr 10, 8:51 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>>
>> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> >wrote:

>>
>> >> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
>> >> less than 100 in the US.

>>
>> >All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
>> >physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
>> >have a Ph.D. in climatology.

>>
>> It also helps to know all possible variables and be able to test the
>> model against actual outcomes.

>
>Yes, and it does not take a degree in climatology to know what these
>are.
>

So is it your opinion that all variables that go into climate are
known and it is possible to accurately model the long term behavior of
complex chaotic states? How would you test the accuracy of computer
models of climatic behavior 100 years in the future? Other computer
models? How could any such claims be falsifiable? This is the very
essence of junk science.

>> "The strategies for making mathematical models for observed phenomena
>> have been evolving since ancient times. An organism-- physical,
>> biological, or social-- is observed in different states. This observed
>> system is the target of the modeling activity. Its states cannot
>> really be described by only a few observable parameters, but we
>> pretend that they can."-- Ralph Abraham and Christopher Shaw,
>> Dynamics: The Geometry of Behavior

>
>Yes, I have that book. It is excellent, and your quote does not say
>what you think it does.
>

It says what it says.

Lacking a parallel earth where all variables can be known and
controlled it is hubris to believe that a computer can be a accurate
substitute. -- Captain Compassion

The predictions of computer models of climatic conditions decades in
the future has the same probative value as the Book of Revelations in
the Bible. -- Captain compassion


--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Apr 11, 9:37 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:18:59 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>
>
>
> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 10, 8:51 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>
> >> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >> >wrote:

>
> >> >> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
> >> >> less than 100 in the US.

>
> >> >All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
> >> >physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
> >> >have a Ph.D. in climatology.

>
> >> It also helps to know all possible variables and be able to test the
> >> model against actual outcomes.

>
> >Yes, and it does not take a degree in climatology to know what these
> >are.

>
> So is it your opinion that all variables that go into climate are
> known and it is possible to accurately model the long term behavior of
> complex chaotic states?


I never said or implied any such thing.

> How would you test the accuracy of computer
> models of climatic behavior 100 years in the future?


By comparing the output with the climate 100 years from now.

> Other computer
> models? How could any such claims be falsifiable? This is the very
> essence of junk science.


No, it isn't. We make untestable (as of yet) predictions all the time.
The existence of the Higgs boson is one such.

When modeling it would be helpful to know every variable, but that is
impossible. You go with what you have. One common mistake is to rely
on predictions beyond what the model is capable of.
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bodhi@mail2bombay.com> wrote:

>On Apr 11, 9:37 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:18:59 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>>
>>
>>
>> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 10, 8:51 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>>
>> >> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> >> >wrote:

>>
>> >> >> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
>> >> >> less than 100 in the US.

>>
>> >> >All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
>> >> >physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
>> >> >have a Ph.D. in climatology.

>>
>> >> It also helps to know all possible variables and be able to test the
>> >> model against actual outcomes.

>>
>> >Yes, and it does not take a degree in climatology to know what these
>> >are.

>>
>> So is it your opinion that all variables that go into climate are
>> known and it is possible to accurately model the long term behavior of
>> complex chaotic states?

>
>I never said or implied any such thing.
>
>> How would you test the accuracy of computer
>> models of climatic behavior 100 years in the future?

>
>By comparing the output with the climate 100 years from now.
>

So what the models tell us is currently un verifiable and can only be
taken as a matter of faith? You don't have a problem with this?

>> Other computer
>> models? How could any such claims be falsifiable? This is the very
>> essence of junk science.

>
>No, it isn't. We make untestable (as of yet) predictions all the time.
>The existence of the Higgs boson is one such.
>

How is this any different than Tarot Cards or Astrology as a
predictive tool?

>When modeling it would be helpful to know every variable, but that is
>impossible. You go with what you have. One common mistake is to rely
>on predictions beyond what the model is capable of.


The very essence of science is hypothesis testing and falsification.
If a statement is not subject to these tools it isn't scientific.

Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to
refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of
testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to
refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. -- Sir
Karl Popper

--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Apr 12, 10:10 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>
>
>
> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 11, 9:37 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:18:59 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>
> >> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 10, 8:51 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>
> >> >> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> >> >> >wrote:

>
> >> >> >> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
> >> >> >> less than 100 in the US.

>
> >> >> >All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
> >> >> >physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
> >> >> >have a Ph.D. in climatology.

>
> >> >> It also helps to know all possible variables and be able to test the
> >> >> model against actual outcomes.

>
> >> >Yes, and it does not take a degree in climatology to know what these
> >> >are.

>
> >> So is it your opinion that all variables that go into climate are
> >> known and it is possible to accurately model the long term behavior of
> >> complex chaotic states?

>
> >I never said or implied any such thing.

>
> >> How would you test the accuracy of computer
> >> models of climatic behavior 100 years in the future?

>
> >By comparing the output with the climate 100 years from now.

>
> So what the models tell us is currently un verifiable and can only be
> taken as a matter of faith? You don't have a problem with this?


I have no problem with models as long as I understand what went into
them and what their applicability is. It is not a matter of faith. It
is a matter of knowing what they can and cannot do. Trusting the media
or unqualified amateurs to state what a model predicts is foolish.

> >> Other computer
> >> models? How could any such claims be falsifiable? This is the very
> >> essence of junk science.

>
> >No, it isn't. We make untestable (as of yet) predictions all the time.
> >The existence of the Higgs boson is one such.

>
> How is this any different than Tarot Cards or Astrology as a
> predictive tool?


The Standard Model of quantum mechanics has been astoundingly
successful. When it predicted a particle, the particle was found. The
tarot and astrology have no such predictive power. The predictions
made by QED were successful because the model embodied scientific
principles.

> >When modeling it would be helpful to know every variable, but that is
> >impossible. You go with what you have. One common mistake is to rely
> >on predictions beyond what the model is capable of.

>
> The very essence of science is hypothesis testing and falsification.
> If a statement is not subject to these tools it isn't scientific.


So predict 1 year into the future and verify it. You are just being
silly by demanding that it predict 100 years into the future and then
complaining that there is no way to test this.

Why not demand that the model be appropriate to predict a billion
years into the future?


Sri Bodhi Prana
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bodhi@mail2bombay.com> wrote:

>On Apr 12, 10:10 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
>>
>>
>>
>> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 11, 9:37 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:18:59 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>>
>> >> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 10, 8:51 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>>
>> >> >> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Apr 9, 11:51 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>> >> >> >wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >> There are actually very few PhD Climatologists in the world. Perhaps
>> >> >> >> less than 100 in the US.

>>
>> >> >> >All it takes to do climate modeling is a good background in fluid
>> >> >> >physics and large scale numerical simulation. One does not have to
>> >> >> >have a Ph.D. in climatology.

>>
>> >> >> It also helps to know all possible variables and be able to test the
>> >> >> model against actual outcomes.

>>
>> >> >Yes, and it does not take a degree in climatology to know what these
>> >> >are.

>>
>> >> So is it your opinion that all variables that go into climate are
>> >> known and it is possible to accurately model the long term behavior of
>> >> complex chaotic states?

>>
>> >I never said or implied any such thing.

>>
>> >> How would you test the accuracy of computer
>> >> models of climatic behavior 100 years in the future?

>>
>> >By comparing the output with the climate 100 years from now.

>>
>> So what the models tell us is currently un verifiable and can only be
>> taken as a matter of faith? You don't have a problem with this?

>
>I have no problem with models as long as I understand what went into
>them and what their applicability is. It is not a matter of faith. It
>is a matter of knowing what they can and cannot do. Trusting the media
>or unqualified amateurs to state what a model predicts is foolish.
>

It doesn't bother you that none of the IPCC models were able to
predict the lack of climatic warming over the last 10 years? The spin
is this was from a general cooling of the Central Pacific(La Nina). If
so why didn't the computer models account for this? In truth they
don't really know.

>> >> Other computer
>> >> models? How could any such claims be falsifiable? This is the very
>> >> essence of junk science.

>>
>> >No, it isn't. We make untestable (as of yet) predictions all the time.
>> >The existence of the Higgs boson is one such.

>>
>> How is this any different than Tarot Cards or Astrology as a
>> predictive tool?

>
>The Standard Model of quantum mechanics has been astoundingly
>successful. When it predicted a particle, the particle was found. The
>tarot and astrology have no such predictive power. The predictions
>made by QED were successful because the model embodied scientific
>principles.
>

Both QED theory and Tarot Cards make predictions neither are 100%
accurate. Wonder what old Werner Heisenberg would have to say about
this?

A policeman pulls Werner Heisenberg over on the autobahn for speeding.
Policeman: Sir, do you know how fast you were going ?
Heisenberg: No, but I know exactly where I am. -- Unk

>> >When modeling it would be helpful to know every variable, but that is
>> >impossible. You go with what you have. One common mistake is to rely
>> >on predictions beyond what the model is capable of.

>>
>> The very essence of science is hypothesis testing and falsification.
>> If a statement is not subject to these tools it isn't scientific.

>
>So predict 1 year into the future and verify it. You are just being
>silly by demanding that it predict 100 years into the future and then
>complaining that there is no way to test this.
>

Note as stated above the models are all ready wrong.

>Why not demand that the model be appropriate to predict a billion
>years into the future?
>

But the models do predict climate behavior 100 years into the future
so that's why that number is used. I know it is inconvenient to some
to request empirical validation for projections. Just call me a
skeptic.


--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Apr 13, 8:31 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana


> >I have no problem with models as long as I understand what went into
> >them and what their applicability is. It is not a matter of faith. It
> >is a matter of knowing what they can and cannot do. Trusting the media
> >or unqualified amateurs to state what a model predicts is foolish.

>
> It doesn't bother you that none of the IPCC models were able to
> predict the lack of climatic warming over the last 10 years?


No. It just shows that they must fix them, which they are working on.
That is part of the modeling process.

> The spin
> is this was from a general cooling of the Central Pacific(La Nina). If
> so why didn't the computer models account for this? In truth they
> don't really know.


That's the way it is when you model complex phenomena.

> >> >> Other computer
> >> >> models? How could any such claims be falsifiable? This is the very
> >> >> essence of junk science.

>
> >> >No, it isn't. We make untestable (as of yet) predictions all the time.
> >> >The existence of the Higgs boson is one such.

>
> >> How is this any different than Tarot Cards or Astrology as a
> >> predictive tool?

>
> >The Standard Model of quantum mechanics has been astoundingly
> >successful. When it predicted a particle, the particle was found. The
> >tarot and astrology have no such predictive power. The predictions
> >made by QED were successful because the model embodied scientific
> >principles.

>
> Both QED theory and Tarot Cards make predictions neither are 100%
> accurate.


Tarot cards are based on nothing. QED is based on symmetry. THe
standard model works great in the realm in which it is valid. It is
the most accurate model of reality, up to measurement error, in the
history of man. It beats tarot cards and astrology by leaps and
bounds.

> Wonder what old Werner Heisenberg would have to say about
> this?


He'd be pleased. It is science.

> A policeman pulls Werner Heisenberg over on the autobahn for speeding.
> Policeman: Sir, do you know how fast you were going ?
> Heisenberg: No, but I know exactly where I am. -- Unk
>
> >> >When modeling it would be helpful to know every variable, but that is
> >> >impossible. You go with what you have. One common mistake is to rely
> >> >on predictions beyond what the model is capable of.

>
> >> The very essence of science is hypothesis testing and falsification.
> >> If a statement is not subject to these tools it isn't scientific.

>
> >So predict 1 year into the future and verify it. You are just being
> >silly by demanding that it predict 100 years into the future and then
> >complaining that there is no way to test this.

>
> Note as stated above the models are all ready wrong.


Whenever you use a model and expect more out of it than it was
designed to do, you will be disappointed. THe goal is insight into the
modeled system, not perfect prediction (Of course that would be nice,
but only those ignorant of the practice of modeling expect that).

> >Why not demand that the model be appropriate to predict a billion
> >years into the future?

>
> But the models do predict climate behavior 100 years into the future
> so that's why that number is used.


No, they don't. Ask the guys who built the models what sort of
accuracy they expect for predictions 100 years into the future, not
some politician or other ignoramus. The modelers do not claim their
models are accurate for 100 year predictions.

Where are you picking up this crap???

> I know it is inconvenient to some
> to request empirical validation for projections.


For whom is it inconvenient?

Sri Bodhi Prana
 
In article <0fefa3a2-9561-418d-b7f6-5d1a33025981
@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bodhi@mail2bombay.com says...
> > It doesn't bother you that none of the IPCC models were able to
> > predict the lack of climatic warming over the last 10 years?

>
> No. It just shows that they must fix them, which they are working on.
> That is part of the modeling process.


No. All of these models are tweaked to death to make them fit the past,
yet they never seem to predict the future. Its actually easier than
most people think to make models fit known data and I am sure they will
"fix them" as you say they will. That doesn't made the models useful
for the future. Famed physicist Freeman Dyson expains it best:
===

The "fluff," Prof. Dyson explains, comes from climate-change models that
predict all manner of catastrophe. The models count for naught as
predictive tools.

"I have studied their climate models and know what they can do," Prof.
Dyson says. "The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a
very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the
oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the
chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not
begin to describe the real world that we live in."

Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are
divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated
by reference to their measured effects.

"They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate,
so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no
reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right
behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world
with increased CO2 in the atmosphere," he states.

Prof. Dyson learned about the pitfalls of modelling early in his career,
in 1953, and from good authority: physicist Enrico Fermi, who had built
the first nuclear reactor in 1942. The young Prof. Dyson and his team of
graduate students and post-docs had proudly developed what seemed like a
remarkably reliable model of subatomic behaviour that corresponded with
Fermi's actual measurements. To Prof. Dyson's dismay, Fermi quickly
dismissed his model.

"In desperation, I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the
agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He
replied, 'How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your
calculations?' I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and
said, 'Four.' He said, 'I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann [the co-
creator of game theory] used to say, with four parameters I can fit an
elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.' With that, the
conversation was over."

Prof. Dyson soon abandoned this line of inquiry. Only years later, after
Fermi's death, did new developments in science confirm that the
impressive agreement between Prof. Dyson's model and Fermi's
measurements was bogus, and that Prof. Dyson and his students had been
spared years of grief by Fermi's wise dismissal of his speculative
model. Although it seemed elegant, it was no foundation upon which to
base sound science.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-
43c2-802d-947d65555e8e

John Black
Posted from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:10:51 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bodhi@mail2bombay.com> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 8:31 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Sri Bodhi Prana

>
>> >I have no problem with models as long as I understand what went into
>> >them and what their applicability is. It is not a matter of faith. It
>> >is a matter of knowing what they can and cannot do. Trusting the media
>> >or unqualified amateurs to state what a model predicts is foolish.

>>
>> It doesn't bother you that none of the IPCC models were able to
>> predict the lack of climatic warming over the last 10 years?

>
>No. It just shows that they must fix them, which they are working on.
>That is part of the modeling process.
>
>> The spin
>> is this was from a general cooling of the Central Pacific(La Nina). If
>> so why didn't the computer models account for this? In truth they
>> don't really know.

>
>That's the way it is when you model complex phenomena.
>
>> >> >> Other computer
>> >> >> models? How could any such claims be falsifiable? This is the very
>> >> >> essence of junk science.

>>
>> >> >No, it isn't. We make untestable (as of yet) predictions all the time.
>> >> >The existence of the Higgs boson is one such.

>>
>> >> How is this any different than Tarot Cards or Astrology as a
>> >> predictive tool?

>>
>> >The Standard Model of quantum mechanics has been astoundingly
>> >successful. When it predicted a particle, the particle was found. The
>> >tarot and astrology have no such predictive power. The predictions
>> >made by QED were successful because the model embodied scientific
>> >principles.

>>
>> Both QED theory and Tarot Cards make predictions neither are 100%
>> accurate.

>
>Tarot cards are based on nothing. QED is based on symmetry. THe
>standard model works great in the realm in which it is valid. It is
>the most accurate model of reality, up to measurement error, in the
>history of man. It beats tarot cards and astrology by leaps and
>bounds.
>
>> Wonder what old Werner Heisenberg would have to say about
>> this?

>
>He'd be pleased. It is science.
>
>> A policeman pulls Werner Heisenberg over on the autobahn for speeding.
>> Policeman: Sir, do you know how fast you were going ?
>> Heisenberg: No, but I know exactly where I am. -- Unk
>>
>> >> >When modeling it would be helpful to know every variable, but that is
>> >> >impossible. You go with what you have. One common mistake is to rely
>> >> >on predictions beyond what the model is capable of.

>>
>> >> The very essence of science is hypothesis testing and falsification.
>> >> If a statement is not subject to these tools it isn't scientific.

>>
>> >So predict 1 year into the future and verify it. You are just being
>> >silly by demanding that it predict 100 years into the future and then
>> >complaining that there is no way to test this.

>>
>> Note as stated above the models are all ready wrong.

>
>Whenever you use a model and expect more out of it than it was
>designed to do, you will be disappointed. THe goal is insight into the
>modeled system, not perfect prediction (Of course that would be nice,
>but only those ignorant of the practice of modeling expect that).
>
>> >Why not demand that the model be appropriate to predict a billion
>> >years into the future?

>>
>> But the models do predict climate behavior 100 years into the future
>> so that's why that number is used.

>
>No, they don't. Ask the guys who built the models what sort of
>accuracy they expect for predictions 100 years into the future, not
>some politician or other ignoramus. The modelers do not claim their
>models are accurate for 100 year predictions.
>
>Where are you picking up this crap???
>
>> I know it is inconvenient to some
>> to request empirical validation for projections.

>
>For whom is it inconvenient?
>


http://i27.tinypic.com/b46gkl.png
Exactly how many years do these IPCC projections go out to?

Prediction is difficult, especially of the future. -- Niels Bohr

If you want me to tell you about the climate of the 21st century ask
me on the dawn of the 22nd century. -- Captain Compassion



--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
Back
Top