24 Responses to “Incontrovertible Science”

1. Leslie Hittner Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 5:52 am

   I see many moving targets with respect to climate change. At first those in opposition said “it ain’t happening.” Then, when it appeared to actually be happening, they said “It’s just part of a natural cycle.” Now, when it appears to have stalled out, they say, “See, it’s not really happening…Ha!”

   Proponents, too, have their moving targets. The failures of those early predictions, for instance, revealed that the climate overall is more stable than had been thought. While changes are taking place the rate-of-change is slower than previously predicted.

   Well, a quite a few years ago, when this most recent discussion began (in the 1970s), I decided to get rid of all my mental mindsets and to look at the evidence and predictions – both FOR and AGAINST (what was then termed) global warming. One of the most convincing items that I found back then (When the computer models were considerably less refined than they are today) was the prediction that with more thermal energy in the atmosphere and oceans, we would begin to see more frequent and severe storms of every kind. Indeed this appears to be the case. While there continues to be ranges (in the number of hurricanes in a season, for instance) those ranges are more extreme and the individual storms range over far wider levels of severity. Same for winter storms. Seems also to be a pattern in late summer storms. Our winter temperatures have ranged from extremely moderate to more normal and even below normal. Moreover, the same “record breaking” weather activity is happening elsewhere.

   This “more active and extreme” weather prediction is easily verifiable and it continues to be my “canary in a cage” with respect to climate. One reason is that this canary reveals in short-term weather events changes that may be taking place in long-term climate events. So far, the canary seems to be suffering.

   Whether one subscribes to “climate change” and whether or not one believes it is the result of human activity, one thing is for sure – we have had more 100 and 500 year storms, blizzards, floods, hurricane events, etc. in the past ten years than would seem “normal.”

   Funny how a lot of people talk frequently about the “crazy weather these days”…but are unwilling to use the GW or CC words.

   I guess PC isn’t owned exclusively by the left…

2. Mitch Berg Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 7:49 am

   Leslie,

   Here’s your first problem:

   At first those in opposition said…

   “Deniers” are not a monolithic bloc of thought (like the Warmers seem to be). It is a fact that the earth’s climate changes over time, responding to any number of stimuli. It cools, it warms, it all seems to average out over the long run (over the last few tens of thousands of years, anyway).

   Some of us observe that the climate changes, and it seems exceedingly unlikely to be man-made, and that the science behind claims of AGW seems to be very flawed. Others mis-speak, or are ignorant and say, that there is no climate change whatsoever.

   This “more active and extreme” weather prediction is easily verifiable and it continues to be my “canary in a cage” with respect to climate. One reason is that this canary reveals in short-term weather events changes that may be taking place in long-term climate events. So far, the canary seems to be suffering.

   The problem is that everything, pro or con, seems to kill the canary. That’s one of the bits of pro-AGW dogma that’s the most insulting; ALL evidence supports AGW! The theory can not be proven false!

   Whether one subscribes to “climate change” and whether or not one believes it is the result of human activity, one thing is for sure – we have had more 100 and 500 year storms, blizzards, floods, hurricane events, etc. in the past ten years than would seem “normal.”

   And that could just as easily (indeed, more easily) be what we call an “instrumentation error”. The definition of “100 year” and “500 year” storms is still fairly arbitrary; we weren’t measuring storms quite so accurately 100, much less 500, years ago.

   Funny how a lot of people talk frequently about the “crazy weather these days”…but are unwilling to use the GW or CC words.

   I believe the people talking about “crazy weather these days” are people who never grew up around a lot of weather. The weather isn’t especially crazy these days.

3. justplainangry Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 8:31 am

   Funny how a lot of people talk frequently about the “crazy weather these days”…but are unwilling to use the GW or CC words.

   Why not throw in CL as well? Weather Changes – Fact. It Warms – Fact, and it Cools – Fact. But what is an absolute cultist fallacy is that a homosapien can somehow control the weather (or climate).

   Another Fact – all the CC, CL and GW terms are bandied about by the soci*list set to gain control over huge tract of global economy for purposes of wealth redistribution, and to restrict our freedoms. Dare you to buy an incandescent light bulb in Western Europe, Leslie.

4. Seflores Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 10:00 am

   I’m with Leslie on this.
   Why just the other day, I was making a grilled cheese sandwich and when I flipped the sandwich – lo and behold the golden brown delicious marks resembled Al Gore’s ‘hockey stick’ graph of temperature increases. If you ‘deniers’ need any more proof – well you just hate the earth.
   PS: I saved the sandwich, I’m waiting on the CRU at the University of East Anglia to certify as scientific my grilled cheese sandwich as a global warmanist miracle.

5. Terry Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 10:15 am

   Actually it was called “global cooling” back in the 70’s, Leslie.
   Whatever the problem, the Left has one solution: a command economy, with themselves in command.
   Command economies result in poverty and want. Even those on the left know this. That is why these days they talk of “equality” rather than “prosperity”. You can’t ration your way to prosperity, but equality is doable.

6. Kermit Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 11:31 am

   ALL evidence supports AGW! The theory can not be proven false!
   Because it is NOT SCIENCE. It cannot be dis-proven or proven. It is a theory in the same way Evolution is a theory. It sounds plausible, but there isn’t one damn thing anyone can do to validate it.

   And Emperor Obama’s Imperial EPA has begun to slap carbon regs on industry that will cripple this country, all in the name of bogus science.

7. nerdbert Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 11:45 am

   Leslie, I use and develop advanced computer modeling daily. One of my Master’s degrees involved research into computer modeling for semiconductors back in the era when computer modeling was in its infancy.

   I got good enough that I was actually called in to look into helping some of the climate guys with their models years ago when I was an adjunct. I have to say that actually looking into the code, looking into the noise in data and their manipulation of it made me run away screaming and destroyed any notion I had that those guys were doing real science.

   To say that the models I’ve seen are junk and would be sent packing in any industry where a real result is required (like semiconductors, where I work) is an understatement. I’m used to seeing and shuddering at grad student programming, but grad students in EE and CS are light years ahead of the climate studies guys as far as quality goes. And as far as basic modeling design and structure, let’s just say the climate studies folks need to take some basic courses in how to build accurate computer modeling systems.

   I’m not sure why anyone puts this massive faith in computer models generated by people who aren’t really professionals at modeling. You can make a model do anything you want by over-fitting the data. The key point is that you have to be able to roll back the data and have the models predict what has happened.

   Case in point: even with NASA providing some rather dubious “adjustments” to the raw data we’ve not seen any warming for the last 12 years, while we have seen the atmospheric content of CO2 rise significantly. None of the major models has been able to predict that a rise of that magnitude we have would not have changed the temperature of the planet. That alone should indicate that the models are bad and the basic understanding of the mechanisms involved is faulty.

   In what I do, generating a model that was that wrong would get you canned and possibly kill your company. In climatology, it gets you more research grants and a trip to Cancun.

   This is not to say that I deny Global Warming/Climate Change/trendy phrase of the day. I just deny that we (1) can make accurate predictions given how blatantly the raw data is being manipulated in questionable ways, (2) understand well enough climate mechanisms and interactions to build accurate models, and (3) can trust the current practitioners in this art to generate accurate models and predictions. I just deny that what we have today is reliable enough to be making decisions of the magnitude that AGW proponents are demanding.

   Honestly, I rate an Amazonian witch doctor’s predictions only slightly less believable than what the climate guys are putting out. It’s that bad, at least from a hard science/engineering outsider who got a peek inside’s perspective.

8. Mitch Berg Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 11:51 am

   To amplify one of Nerdbert’s points: the “models” that serve as the basis for much AGW hysteria don’t even correctly “predict” (reconstruct, really) past events.

   I work in IT. And while I”m no tester, I do know that if a piece of code can take known input and fail to generate known output, you’re working with a really buggy premise.

9. Mr. D Says:
   January 3rd, 2011 at 12:11 pm

   You can make a model do anything you want by over-fitting the data.

   Home truth.

10. Troy Says:
    January 3rd, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    If they had any faith that the models would not be openly ridiculed they would probably release them to public scrutiny.

    As they don’t even want to do that with the raw data, you may begin to picture how much confidence they have in their own work. Despite many impassioned pleadings to the contrary.

11. jimf Says:
    January 3rd, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Recently, wattsupwiththat.com (great site), reported that Dr. Don Easterbrook (professor of geology) while studying ice cores from Greenland, “Found that virtually all the past 10,000 years or so have been warmer than now. Where do the vaunted “warm” years of 1934, 1998 and 2010 rank? Of the last 10,500 years, 9,100 have been warmer than those “warm” years.” It matters greatly what slice of time you’re looking at when predicting a “trend”.

12. DiscordianStooj Says:
    January 3rd, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    It is a theory in the same way Evolution is a theory.

    Your basic misunderstanding of what a scientific “theory” is is the real problem.

13. Terry Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 12:55 am

    So tell me all about “theories”, Stooj. Enlighten me. Also, please include your bonafides. Did you take and pass high school physics?

14. DiscordianStooj Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 4:21 am

    I passed college physics, but I know that on this blog college education isn’t important.

    I have never, in my life, “enlightened” anyone. Sorry.

15. Mitch Berg Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 8:06 am

    on this blog college education isn’t important

    Um, huh? Condescend much?

    Well, you’re half right. Education is important. Schooling is not. It is important that someone be educated, in the sense of having learned stuff. Waving a degree about and acting like it implies one is not a moron – and we all know the type (Koff koff Matt Yglesias) – is a lot less impressive.

    My drummer in my old band dropped out of tenth grade. He knew British and Irish literature better than any English MA I ever met. Who’s better “educated” on the subject.

    Sniffing down your nose won’t get you a lot of mileage, Stoo.

16. nerdbert Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 10:20 am

    I passed college physics, but I know that on this blog college education isn’t important.

    I taught college physics. Which level of physics did you pass, Falling-Rocks-for-Jocks (the section that typically involves basketball players trying to pass their general requirement) or the real thing that’s the weed-out for Engineering and Physics majors? Somehow I suspect it’s the former. (Gee, I can look down my nose, too, if you so choose.)

    If you’ve studied the philosophy of science, you’ll remember that the ability to prove a theory requires falsifiability at the least, testability is a far better measure. (Actually, it’s even more complicated than that, but let’s go for the Popper popularized and bowdlerized version since more people are familiar with that.)

    So is Evolution falsifiable? It completely depends on how you state the concept. As it is popularly taught in school it is not a theory. Proponents state that it is completely responsible for the evolution of all creatures and explain that any gaps in the fossil record are simply because the fossils haven’t been found. In other words, the commonly taught, pop-sci version isn’t a theory, it’s a belief system.

    If you look at evolution with a small e, the theory of natural selection, you’re on far better ground. We can falsify that theory, and even better: it’s testable.

    On a side note, all these pop-philosophers who claim that “Science Proves God Doesn’t Exist” bother me, too. There is no possible way that the scientific method can be used to prove God doesn’t exist. At best you can say that there are alternative explanations for various phenomena, but there’s no possible, rigorous, scientific test that you can have to prove that God (or an alternative, all-powerful entity of your choice) doesn’t exist.

17. Troy Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 11:15 am

    DiscordianStooj said:

    “Your basic misunderstanding of what a scientific “theory” is is the real problem”

    Now that is really, really funny.

18. DiscordianStooj Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Sniffing down your nose won’t get you a lot of mileage, Stoo.

    I’m not the one who asked for bonafides, Mitch.

    Gee, I can look down my nose, too, if you so choose.

    I’m glad everyone overlooked the condescending question that let to my snarky response. It’s typical that only certain people are held to any standard here.

    So you’re saying that evolution is a theory, and is falsifiable, the denial of which by Kermit is what I was commenting on.

    “Science Proves God Doesn’t Exist”

    We also both agree that’s a stupid statement.

19. Mitch Berg Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    I’m not the one who asked for bonafides, Mitch.

    True. Although Understanding ones’ opponent’s background in science seems like a reasonable question when the subject is science or something like it, and when you’re in an argument with (perhaps it surprised you to find, since liberals seem to think conservatives are snake-handling inbreds) a bunch of scientists and engineers, probably not a question that should shock anyone. Am I wrong?

    Saying “college doesn’t seem to matter around here…” – words fail.

20. Troy Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    DiscordianStooj said:

    “So you’re saying that evolution is a theory, and is falsifiable, the denial of which by Kermit is what I was commenting on”

    nerdbert said:

    “It completely depends on how you state the concept. As it is popularly taught in school it is not a theory …
    … it’s a belief system”

    and then (my bold):

    “If you look at evolution with a small e, the theory of natural selection, you’re on far better ground. We can falsify that theory, and even better: it’s testable.”

    So no, that’s not exactly what was said.

21. DiscordianStooj Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    Education is important. Schooling is not.

    This is exactly what I was referring to. Does it matter if I learned physics in a college class, a high school class or from reading Richard Feynman? I never claimed to be an expert, but I do understand the basic definition of a theory.

    perhaps it surprised you to find, since liberals seem to think conservatives are snake-handling inbreds

    I’ve been here long enough to know that many of the people here are well educated and not stupid. Say, Kermit, is it bigoted to generalize what all liberals seem to think?

    Troy, fine. I’ll rephrase: ““So you’re saying that natural selection, a main process of evolution, is a theory, and is falsifiable, the denial of which by Kermit is what I was commenting on” Sorry. It doesn’t change the fact that overwhelming evidence points to species evolving.

22. DiscordianStooj Says:
    January 4th, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    Also, Mitch, where did you find the quoted phrase “incontrovertible evidence” for your post. It doesn’t appear in the article.

    None of those predictions were any kind of scientific consensus. None of them even come from scientific journals.

23. Troy Says:
    January 6th, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    DiscordianStooj said:

    Good rephrase, but I didn’t think Kermit was addressing natural selection specifically.

    “It doesn’t change the fact that overwhelming evidence points to species evolving.”

    And immediately we’re back to declaring our faith again. If you have the “overwhelming evidence”, stop holding back.

    “None of those predictions were any kind of scientific consensus”

    Exactly how is a “scientific consensus” constructed, in your opinion?

    “None of them even come from scientific journals”

    Where all truth is recorded? All hail the magic journals, eh? I don’t think you believe that, but that’s the way it’s reading. *shrug*

24. Mitch Berg Says:
    January 6th, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Also, Mitch, where did you find the quoted phrase “incontrovertible evidence” for your post. It doesn’t appear in the article.

    The Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps via Algore (I can’t remember), or any of his various copycats.

    None of those predictions were any kind of scientific consensus. None of them even come from scientific journals.

    Irrelevant; all were accepted and reported as fact by the media and the political left; both were the subject of indoctrination by authorities who, for personal or ideological or vocational reasons, went along with the bandwagon.

    When I was a kid, overpopulation leading to a huge die-off of humans – the Ehrlich story – was taught as if it was impending. Just the way AGW is today.

    That AGW got written up in scientific journals shows the extent to which scientific journals have been politicized, if the critique of the case for AGW is true (and I believe it is).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.