[OT] How science is not done

On Sep 6, 12:05*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Is that what AGW says? Does the AGW theory state that present CO2 levels are
unprecedented - ie have never occurred before - is this a standard part of
AGW science?

In the ordinary sense of the word "unprecedented", which means
"unprecedented in recorded human history", not "unprecedented in
geological time", yes. If current carbon dioxide levels bring about a
climate suitable for dinosaurs instead of people, that counts as one
of the conditions it is desired to prevent.

Svante Arrhenius' original 1896 calculations led to his conclusion
that over a broad range of concentrations centered about that which
existed then, a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to a 3 degree
Celsius rise in temperature. We have better infrared spectrometers
today than they had then, so I don't know if the back-of-the-envelope
figure - which detailed climate models would only slightly change -
has changed since then.

Given that rising temperatures are already leading to the release of
methane from the seabed and from peat bogs - and methane is a potent,
but not long-lived, greenhouse gas - it seems to me the question is
not whether there is cause for concern, but whether it is already too
late.

Also, since there is a simple mechanism by which carbon dioxide causes
temperature increases, noting that carbon dioxide seems to *lag*
temperature in the geological record does not refute global warming.
It just says that global warming triggers a cooling process that
outweighs continued (slow, natural) increases in carbon dioxide...
which, involving drastic climate change, is just as likely to be
disastrous as the polar caps melting. For example, the course of the
Gulf Stream could shift, triggering a new ice age. Obviously, we don't
want *either* of those things to happen.

To make it possible for the climate to continue within a very narrowly
constrained range of temperatures similar to that which we enjoyed
during the rise of human civilization, we have to avoid tampering with
the world system by supplying it with inputs that are outside the
range of those which it received during *that period*, not geological
time going back to the dinosaurs.

Unless, of course, we are specifically countering some out-of-range
*natural* input, but no such natural input has been detected. Instead,
it is noted we might need our fossil fuel reserves to raise the CO2
level, and counter an ice age, some 20,000 years from now or something
like that, if I remember one news item I read recently correctly.

John Savard

On Sep 5, 11:33*am, oriel36 wrote:

There are no astronomers nor institutions in existence to accept the
major modification for explaining the seasonal temperature
fluctuations which assigns a proper role for 'tilt' in determining
planetary seasonal characteristics,not even when there are actual
visual affirmation of the modification.

As I've noted, as best I understand what you've been saying on this
topic, there is nothing factually incorrect in your view of the
seasons. But conventional astronomers already understand the seasons
properly; the only item of difference between your view and theirs is
that they assume the Earth's orbital motion as a given, not something
that could be hypothesized as absent, and thus, the inclination of the
Earth's rotational axis to the plane of the ecliptic, which in fact
is, as you claim, merely the link that lets the Earth's orbital motion
cause the seasons, can, in their view, reasonably be referred to, in a
non-technical fashion, as the "cause" of the seasons itself.

In any case, I thought of you when I picked up a copy I had of a book
about the history of Islamic science - as its author praised the Arab
astronomers both for anticipating Copernicus, and for eschewing taking
his bold step of advocating heliocentric astronomy as fact, which he
decried as contributing to the downfall of religious faith in the
West.

John Savard

On Sep 5, 11:44*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:33:03 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote:

By far the biggest *planetary temperature fluctuation expereinced is
between January and July...

What about July back to January?

Well, since the world is getting warmer all the time, obviously that
transition is slightly smaller.

Oh, wait a moment - the Earth is at aphelion on July 4th or
thereabouts.

Hence, the Southern Hemisphere temperature fluctuation between July
and January must actually be the largest one! (But if we're talking
about a "planetary" temperature fluctuation, the larger mass of ocean
in the Southern Hemisphere, which smooths out temperature
variations... but perhaps the real change is between spring and fall
on the one hand, and summer and winter on the opposite hand if we are
thinking of the planet as a whole...)

John Savard

Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news Peter Webb wrote:

***********************
I googled Dennis Avery, Richard Lindzen, and Tim Ball. All have
them have Wikipedia pages. None of the wikipedia pages mentions
they have worked for tobacco companies.

I think you are making facts up, ie "lying".

You can think what you like. But the only thing "mommycalled" got
wrong was the names of the specialist tobacco deniers for hire who
now work on spreading AGW disinformation. A careless mistake I grant
you.

So the only thing he got right was that some ad agencies have worked
at various times over the last 30 years for both a tobacco company
and a resources company.

Big ****ing deal. Are we supposed to think this means something?

I note that you do not deal with the substantive issue of the specific
pathological liars that prostitute their science to the highest bidder

Ohh, OK, people who hold different scientific opinions to you are
pathological liars.

This isn't about holding different scientific opinions. I have already
made clear that Lindzen is a respectable scientist making a useful
contribution to the debate (even if I do not agree with everything he says).

I am talking about the likes of Singer and Seitz who were previously
employed by big tobacco to manufacture doubt in the public mind and have
since moved on to doing the same thing for AGW denial. They claim to be
scientists but are little more than paid liars spreading disinformation
to confuse the public. The method works incredibly well because the
public do not understand science.

I listed below with supporting references showing their previous
involvement in manufacturing doubt about smoking causing cancer.

"Their" involvement?

Explain to me one more time. How can the ad agencies used by tobacco
companies in the 1960s possibly affect the rate of warming cuased by
anthropogenic CO2 ?

Not the ad agencies the "scientists" they use have previous for denial
that smoking tobacco causes cancer and other diseases. Their specialism
is confusing the public to make bad lifestyle choices.

What other scientific facts are determined by an examination of whcich
advertising companies had which clients in the 1960s ?

I don't see why you are so obsessed with the ad agencies. The point here
is that several of the AGW denier for hire "scientists" used by the
fossil fuel companies were previously working for tobacco does not cause
cancer disinformation campaigns. Their skills are in deceiving the public.

If you trust them to tell the truth with their previous reputation for
lying outright to keep the public from learning the truth about
smoking tobacco then you are either gullible as hell, terminally
stupid or both.

I don't trust advertising agencies when I form scientific opinions.

But you do seem content to trust people with a track record of lying
about tobacco being good for you for advice on climate change.
How rational is that?

Nor
should you. Try and find out about science from sources other than TV
advertising would be my first suggestion.

Fool. I read the primary literature.

I thought this was about science ... I had no idea conspiracy kooks
were also interested in climate science.

It is science and the scientific evidence is clear if you look at it
through anything other than the distorting mirror of dittohead land.

So you say.

If this is the case, why is your only argument about which advertising
companies had which clients in the 1860s ?

I didn't raise the advertising agencies. I made the comment that key
members of the "scientists" that big oil has bought have previous for
the smoking tobacco does not cause cancer campaign. What does that tell
you about their personal integrity?

Cherry picking data and latching on to a handful of generally extreme
right wing politically motivated maverick scientists who deny AGW
several of whom have very questionable credentials.

I didn't. Not once. I didn't even mention any specific scientists, let
alone "extreme right wing politically motivated maverick scientists",
let alone "latch on" to their ideas.

It is *exactly* what you are doing.

A lot seems to go in the feverered imagination of conspiracy kooks but
nowhere else. This is an example.


Increasingly the ones with any personal integrity or residual
scientific credibility do not deny that AGW is occurring, and have now
switched to claiming that it doesn't matter.

Interesting. Have you a reference for this statement, that the rate at
which scientists are changing their beliefs towards AGW is increasing? I
thought they were all supposed to believe already?

The denialists are finding it harder and harder to pretend that there is
no AGW component. Even as far back as 1998 the sceptics Baliunas and
Soon were obliged to comment that after about 1970 it is impossible to
match the Earth's observed temperature record *without* including the
effects of GHG forcing. And that in rough terms the GHG forcing over the
past thirty years was similar to the natural variation over the century.
They could not hand wave this away by changing the brightness of the sun
because of the satellite flux measurements.

The evidence in terms of changing CO2 concentrations and the isotopic
signature of fossil fuels in the atmosphere rules out most of the lies
they are still peddling in the popular press and particularly on the web.

Wow. Some evidence rules out "most of the lies" they are still peddling
in the popular press. Whoever "they" are of course, and whatever "some
of the lies" were, and whatever the hell you think you are talking
about, which is certainly about nothing I said.

You are choosing to be deliberately obtuse. Sophistry will not win you
this argument. The lies and the liars that peddle them are clear enough.
A nearly complete list of the sceptical scientists is online at:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/skeptics.htm

It credits them all with sincerely believing what they say. I do not.

Again, my advice to you is to pretty much ignore what they peddle in the
popular press. Newspaper companies sell newspapers by making the stuff
they publish appear newsworthy. Of course a headline which says "2,000
homes in your suburb threatened by increasing sea levels" is going to
sell a lot more than a headline which says "2,000 homes in your suburb
NOT threatened by increasing sea levels".

I read the primary scientific literature. I know some of the
experimental evidence in detail. I work on designing instruments to
measure ultra trace analytical chemical and isotopic signatures.

And advertising companies are certainly not there to tell you the
*whole* truth on scientific matters, I haven't even ever seen one do a
sensitivity analysis on the boundary conditions of a differential
equation, let alone completely analyse a full climate model. That is not
what they do, and of course if that is where you get your information
then you will not be fully informed. You should stop doing it.

I suggest you look in the mirror.

This manufactured "uncertainty" is an example of anti-science in its
worst possible form.

And this is a manufactured example of anti-English in its worst possible
form.

My advice - stop getting your "science" from the popular press and
advertising agencies. As you seem to already understand at some level,
science is not done that way.

Take your own advice. But in your case it seems you get your "knowledge"
and debating style from right whinger dittohead blogs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:06:11 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Note the many tactics of the pseudoscientist:

Funny, you claimed that AGW had equally good supporting evidence as did
evolution.

You are now trying to justify a different statement that an almost equal
proportion of scientists support both.

Attempting to use insignificant differences in argument to discredit the
individual or his statements (once I said that evolution and AGW are
similarly accepted, a second time I said that evolution is 99% accepted
and AGW is 97% accepted).


So, just out of curiousity, do you think that AGW is as equally well
proven as evolution?

The evidence at present is that without including the effects of GHG
forcing it is not posisble to balance the energy equation for gloabl
temperatures. That is the Earth is hotter than it should be for the
amount of solar flux the satellites are measuring. The discreprancy
climbed steeply in the last four decades.

The greenhouse effect (an unfortunate name because it is misleading
about the physics) is proven beyond all doubt. The main questions now
are exactly how do some of the irreversible non-linear mechanisms work
and at what level do they trigger serious levels of positive feedback.

The albedo of snow at the poles against open water makes an important
contribution to our present climate. Lose it and you can get a step
change in the power input absorbed at the ground. Exact extent of the
problem varies with the level and type of cloud cover.

These are completely different statements; one is about scientific
evidence,
the other is about the popularity of different theories.

Deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of scientific consensus, and
downplaying its critical role in determining the relative value of
scientific theories.

I get the fact that you believe in climate science because most other
people do.

I expect like me Chris has the background and the resources to look at
any scientific paper he wishes on this subject.

I don't believe in climate science because the models don't match
experimental data.

You will have to be more specific. The climate science models do have
significant predictive power. The problems arise from determining the
sensitivity of some of the feedbacks. The IPCC models are arguably a bit
on the conservative side. When Nature did an ensemble of wider parameter
models far worse things happened in some of the outliers.

That you did not even attempt to justify your original claim about
supporting evidence for AGW is noted.

Always placing the burden of proof on the consensus opinion.

Of course the burden of proof is on the believers in AGW; they are the
ones running around saying the sky is falling in. For that matter, the
burden of proof is always on the people proposing a theory.

No. We are not saying that the sky is falling in. The scientific
evidence for AGW is strong, but hard to sum up in 10 second sound bite.

The *BIG* problem here is that the sky is getting very slightly lower
with time. AGW will happen on a timescale that politicians find
extremely difficult to deal with (ie more than 10 years - heck our lot
right now find planning for the next day too difficult).

Is AGW as well proven as evolution, as you stated? Where is the
equivalent
of the discoveries from gene sequencing of common genes amongst species
believed to share recent common ancestors?

Continually ignoring powerful evidence presented in discussion (I didn't
waste my time presenting any, but other people gave some nice examples,
and you haven't responded to them at all.)

You seem to know a little about climate science.

I am aware that there are lots of computer models of how the earth warms
and cools. Which is the correct one? What is the scientific consensus of
what the most accurate computer model is? Which one is generally
believed correct, that I can have a look at?

There are a few that you can play with to get a rough feel for what will
happen in the simpler cases. It is incredibly difficult to fry the
planet - I know I have tried and even with my best efforts the poles
were still just about habitable. I have posted links to a few of them
here before (and also in s.e.d).

Gee, so as evidence for AGW, you talk about what non-scientists do.

Deliberate misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the point of
arguments.

I thought you were talking about what non-scientists (specifically
advertising companies) do, but you snipped the context, so we will never
know.


Just out of curiosity, and as you avoided answering the question, do you
still believe that the AGW theory is as well proven as evolution theory?

Continual restatement of questions long since answered, as a diversion
from answering anything substantive.


Gee, you spent 2 lines evading a simple yes or no question.

Is AGW as well suported by evidence as the theory of evolution through
natural selection? It was your comparison, after all ...

Close enough that I would view with great suspicion anyone arguing
against AGW who could not propose an alternative mechanism to explain
the most recent 150 years of historical climate data.

I think you have been suckered by the CO2 lags climate change in the
historical record trick. It is a true scientific statement. But it is
being used as a part of a well known fallacy in the AGW debate.

CO2 solubility in the oceans is affected by rising temperature - so if
the planet warms on average more CO2 will be in the atmosphere and less
dissolved in the oceans.

But if we emit additional CO2 (which is a powerful IR absorber) the
planet warms because of that and then the CO2 solubility in the oceans
is still decreased leading to a further release. It gets even nastier if
we manage to thaw the Arctic permafrost since that will release large
amounts of methane - a far more potent but short lived GHG.

We can incidentally distinguish between fossil fuel CO2 and the stuff in
the natural cycle because of the way photosynthesis concentrates the
lighter isotopes.

Here is what you said: "Whether or not it fails before 1850 [during a
coling period] really isn't relevant."

You latch on to random cherry picked points and labour them. Vulcanism
plays a certain part in climatic behaviour - Tamborra in 1816 year
without a summer and more of interest to me Krakatoa in 1883-4-5.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/G.../page2972.html

Toba is generally reckonned to be the volcano that very nearly wiped out
humanity - cutting our ancestors gene pool down to a small set.

As does the variation in the Earths orbital elements and continental
drift. These longer term geological timescales are important mainly over
millenia. Although there is some evidence that shorter timescale Keeling
tides may be able to cause short scale climate variability.

Doesn't look like a misrepresentation to me. Looks pretty close to a
direct quote.

Here's another direct quote from you, in passing:

"Anybody who does deny this has little credibility- in the same way that
a denier of evolution is going to have a tough time being taken seriously."

If they can demonstrate a coherent argument that improves the existing
models and shows why they may be wrong then they will be taken
seriously. It is for precisely this reason that Lindzen is not a typical
denier for hire. He is a good scientist and has made important
contributions to climate modelling. His Iris hypothesis is quite elegant
- wrong as it turns out when the idea was tested against observation but
useful for refining the models.

But if you look at Singer, Seitz, Idso et al you see a darker side of
"scientist" for sale - will testify to anything if the money is right.

Now, about your comparison of AGW to evolution ... do you still stand by
that, or were you having a small fit of religious inspiration, and
exaggerated somewhat?

I would, however, settle for a compromise that AGW is as well supported
a scientific theory as (say) string theory, or dark energy ... I can
handle being compared to a string theory denier, doesn't sound so bad.

You cannot deny it unless you can put something else in its place that
better explains the behaviour of our climate. If you have a better model
then lets see it otherwise you are just a credulous fool taken in by a
sophisticated public disinformation campaign funded by Exxon and others.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news Peter Webb wrote:

***********************
I googled Dennis Avery, Richard Lindzen, and Tim Ball. All have them
have Wikipedia pages. None of the wikipedia pages mentions they have
worked for tobacco companies.

I think you are making facts up, ie "lying".

You can think what you like. But the only thing "mommycalled" got
wrong was the names of the specialist tobacco deniers for hire who now
work on spreading AGW disinformation. A careless mistake I grant you.

So the only thing he got right was that some ad agencies have worked at
various times over the last 30 years for both a tobacco company and a
resources company.

Big ****ing deal. Are we supposed to think this means something?

I note that you do not deal with the substantive issue of the specific
pathological liars that prostitute their science to the highest bidder

Ohh, OK, people who hold different scientific opinions to you are
pathological liars.

This isn't about holding different scientific opinions. I have already
made clear that Lindzen is a respectable scientist making a useful
contribution to the debate (even if I do not agree with everything he
says).



So it is legitimate to doubt AGW on scientific grounds? That's funny, lots
of people in this thread have compared being skeptical about AGW with being
skeptical about evolution through natural selection. The implied but never
stated association is that being skeptical about AGW is equivalent to being
a creationist. Again, and as always through this thread, rather than attempt
to evaluate AGW on its scientific merit, the entire arguments in favour of
AGW that aree given ar ad-hominem attacks on people who hold different
opinions about the scientific validity of current climate models.


I am talking about the likes of Singer and Seitz who were previously
employed by big tobacco to manufacture doubt in the public mind and have
since moved on to doing the same thing for AGW denial. They claim to be
scientists but are little more than paid liars spreading disinformation to
confuse the public. The method works incredibly well because the public do
not understand science.


________________________
What I don't understand is why anybody thinks that whether some guy (or two
guys) once worked for a tobacco company has any bearing on the accuracy of
current climate models. I have never heard of Singer or Seitz before, and
couldn't care less about what they think. I did not mention these people as
authorities on the subject (or in any context at all). I objected (and still
object) to climate science on the basis that theory does not match
experiment. Whenever I point this out, I get some conspiracy crank arguing
that I must be wrong because "I am an AGW skeptic", "Some other person is
also a skeptic", "This other person once worked for a tobacco company",
"Tobacco companies have no morals", "Therefore this person lied about
tobacco", "Therefore they are lying about AGW", "Therefore I am wrong about
AGW". FFS, what a convoluted line of reason, and one with several obvious
logical errors. I get more plausible justifications of why the moon landing
was a hoax, with fewer steps and less errors.



I listed below with supporting references showing their previous
involvement in manufacturing doubt about smoking causing cancer.

"Their" involvement?

Explain to me one more time. How can the ad agencies used by tobacco
companies in the 1960s possibly affect the rate of warming cuased by
anthropogenic CO2 ?

Not the ad agencies the "scientists" they use have previous for denial
that smoking tobacco causes cancer and other diseases. Their specialism is
confusing the public to make bad lifestyle choices.


So there are two scientists who once worked for tobacco companies who are
also AGW skeptics? So what? How does this affect the rate at which
anthropogenic CO2 affects global temperatures?

BTW, this is a common example of crank argument. Extrapolate from two people
to an entire group. Yes, some Jews are liars but this doesn't mean the
holocaust never happened. Yes, several engineers were initially surprised at
how the twin towers collapsed, but that doesn't mean 9/11 was a controlled
demolition.



What other scientific facts are determined by an examination of whcich
advertising companies had which clients in the 1960s ?

I don't see why you are so obsessed with the ad agencies. The point here
is that several of the AGW denier for hire "scientists" used by the fossil
fuel companies were previously working for tobacco does not cause cancer
disinformation campaigns. Their skills are in deceiving the public.

Well, I have never read any research from them, as far as I know, and indeed
my objections are purely based on the apparent complete lack of climate
science to produce a theory which matches experimental data, which is a
fundamental requirement of a science.

Mr Singer and Seitz may well have worked for a tobacco company, and
therefore by definition be evil.

However, both of them could be arrested tomrorow on charges of serial
pedophilia and releasing genetically engineered viruses to cause mass death,
and it wouldn't alter my opinions on climate science. Indeed, nor would it
even affect climate science; I am sure that the earth is no warmer or cooler
than it would have been if they had both never even existed.


If you trust them to tell the truth with their previous reputation for
lying outright to keep the public from learning the truth about smoking
tobacco then you are either gullible as hell, terminally stupid or both.

I don't trust advertising agencies when I form scientific opinions.

But you do seem content to trust people with a track record of lying about
tobacco being good for you for advice on climate change.
How rational is that?


I don't trust these people. I had never even heard of them before, so how
could I possibly be said to trust them?

Apparently you don't trust them either.

How this is supposed to prove that current climate models are correct, I
have no idea.



Nor should you. Try and find out about science from sources other than TV
advertising would be my first suggestion.

Fool. I read the primary literature.


Ohh, OK, its just that whenever I ask for succesful predictions of climate
science, you seem to go about this conspiracy thing involving tobacco
companies, so I assumed your primary expertise was in conspiracy theories,
not science.



I thought this was about science ... I had no idea conspiracy kooks
were also interested in climate science.

It is science and the scientific evidence is clear if you look at it
through anything other than the distorting mirror of dittohead land.

So you say.

If this is the case, why is your only argument about which advertising
companies had which clients in the 1860s ?

I didn't raise the advertising agencies. I made the comment that key
members of the "scientists" that big oil has bought have previous for the
smoking tobacco does not cause cancer campaign. What does that tell you
about their personal integrity?


The question in the subject line, and which started all this, is actually
whether climate science can justifiably be termed a "science", given that it
has not yet made any testable predictions, and current experimental data
does not match theory.

The personal integrity of some people I have never heard of would seem to
have no bearing on this whatsoever.

Lets say the scientific theory we were discussing was dark energy. Lets say
I am skeptical of its existence, and ask for succesful predictions made by
its proponents. You immediately respond by saying that two of the main
skeptics of dark energy are proven liars, as they had both been arrested for
tax evasion. Would that strike you as legitimate scientific defence of the
dark energy theory?


Cherry picking data and latching on to a handful of generally extreme
right wing politically motivated maverick scientists who deny AGW
several of whom have very questionable credentials.

I didn't. Not once. I didn't even mention any specific scientists, let
alone "extreme right wing politically motivated maverick scientists", let
alone "latch on" to their ideas.

It is *exactly* what you are doing.

I have only advanced two ideas in this whole thread:

1. That the main measure of the validity of a scientific theory is the
adherence between theory and experiment. (Richard Feynman said it better,
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart
you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. )

2. That climate science results do not agree with experiment

If we can't agree on the first of these, then don't bother.

If you don't agree with the second one, tell me where I can find details of
the concordance between theoretical predictions of climate science and
independent (of the model) experimental data.




A lot seems to go in the feverered imagination of conspiracy kooks but
nowhere else. This is an example.


Increasingly the ones with any personal integrity or residual scientific
credibility do not deny that AGW is occurring, and have now switched to
claiming that it doesn't matter.

Interesting. Have you a reference for this statement, that the rate at
which scientists are changing their beliefs towards AGW is increasing? I
thought they were all supposed to believe already?

The denialists are finding it harder and harder to pretend that there is
no AGW component.

Denialist?

That is an emotionally loaded term, conjuring up as it does Holocaust
denial, I wonder why you feel the need to make (again) an implied ad-hominem
attack to defend a scientific theory.

Do you use this term for other people who diagree with you on scientific
theories? Assuming you are a string theorist, do you call people who don't
believe in string theory "Denialists" as well?


Even as far back as 1998 the sceptics Baliunas and Soon were obliged to
comment that after about 1970 it is impossible to match the Earth's
observed temperature record *without* including the effects of GHG
forcing. And that in rough terms the GHG forcing over the past thirty
years was similar to the natural variation over the century. They could
not hand wave this away by changing the brightness of the sun because of
the satellite flux measurements.

Wow. Even as far back as 9 years ago it was agreed by somebody that the sun
wasn't changing because satellite flux measurements something scientific
natural variation something imortant for over a century.

You have to love those satellite flux measurements, unless the people who
built them also made machines for cigarette factories.

Now, one thing about predictive ability in a model is that it "predicts". In
1998 researchers already had data for the period 1970 - 1998, which means
they knew the answer in advance. That, clearly, is cheating. I can do this
with simple curve fitting.



The evidence in terms of changing CO2 concentrations and the isotopic
signature of fossil fuels in the atmosphere rules out most of the lies
they are still peddling in the popular press and particularly on the
web.

Wow. Some evidence rules out "most of the lies" they are still peddling
in the popular press. Whoever "they" are of course, and whatever "some of
the lies" were, and whatever the hell you think you are talking about,
which is certainly about nothing I said.

You are choosing to be deliberately obtuse. Sophistry will not win you
this argument. The lies and the liars that peddle them are clear enough. A
nearly complete list of the sceptical scientists is online at:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/skeptics.htm

It credits them all with sincerely believing what they say. I do not.


Let me get this straight. You are posting a list of people who don't agree
with your scientific theory and denouncing them as liars.

You clearly have strange ideas abou the scientific method.


Again, my advice to you is to pretty much ignore what they peddle in the
popular press. Newspaper companies sell newspapers by making the stuff
they publish appear newsworthy. Of course a headline which says "2,000
homes in your suburb threatened by increasing sea levels" is going to
sell a lot more than a headline which says "2,000 homes in your suburb
NOT threatened by increasing sea levels".

I read the primary scientific literature. I know some of the experimental
evidence in detail. I work on designing instruments to measure ultra trace
analytical chemical and isotopic signatures.

And not only that, you know about which advertising agencies are used by
different companies, and you have a list of "Denialists" who are liars.

And you know about a study published as far back as 9 years ago that
succesfuly predicted the climate from 1970 to 1998, in some cases less than
20 years after it had actually happened.



And advertising companies are certainly not there to tell you the *whole*
truth on scientific matters, I haven't even ever seen one do a
sensitivity analysis on the boundary conditions of a differential
equation, let alone completely analyse a full climate model. That is not
what they do, and of course if that is where you get your information
then you will not be fully informed. You should stop doing it.

I suggest you look in the mirror.

This manufactured "uncertainty" is an example of anti-science in its
worst possible form.

And this is a manufactured example of anti-English in its worst possible
form.

My advice - stop getting your "science" from the popular press and
advertising agencies. As you seem to already understand at some level,
science is not done that way.

Take your own advice. But in your case it seems you get your "knowledge"
and debating style from right whinger dittohead blogs.


Oh dear. Another ad-hominem attack.

Cranks and kooks, the world over. Generalise from one case to an entire
group. Try and isolate this group by name calling. Don't respond to requests
for hard, verifiable evidence. When cornered, pick up on a tangential item
and try and make it the new subject. Establish guilt by association. Make
ad-hominem attacks.



Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sep 6, 12:15*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Let me get this straight. Your argument is that evolution is correct, and so
therefore AGW is also correct. I certainly accept the first premise, but I
am having a lot of trouble seeing how the conclusion necessarily follows.
Perhaps if you could go through your argument step by step ...

Another cute debating technique. It should be clear what my argument
is.

When the scientific community is nearly unanimous in agreeing about
something, they're probably right. Even in such a situation, you will
find some scientists who disagree - but for identifiable reasons,
whether because of a religious belief, or because of the opposite - a
paycheck from tobacco or oil companies.

Martin Brown's responses to you are more detailed and factual than
mine, but it is obvious to me that your position isn't just the result
of clear thinking and skepticism.

It is true that _Scientific American_, which is influential, sometimes
gives evidence of a left-wing political bias. But you seem to live in
a world where the world scientific community is as much the deserving
subject of skepticism as, say, politicians. I'm sorry, but that's not
a reasonable view to take of a community of people who check facts for
a living. You may not be a creationist, but the creationists are the
only other major group to take this kind of view of the world
scientific community.

Science is a means by which we apprehend reality. Having followed the
arguments which establish the truth of Special Relativity, I would no
more disagree with it than I would disagree with the evidence of my
own eyes.

I direct skepticism at things like ghosts and flying saucers - because
their advocates are clearly not competent. Scientists know what
they're talking about.

It's true environmentalists have cried "Wolf!" a lot. But you do know
how that story ended, don't you?

John Savard

On Sep 7, 6:17*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

The question in the subject line, and which started all this, is actually
whether climate science can justifiably be termed a "science", given that it
has not yet made any testable predictions, and current experimental data
does not match theory.

Under most circumstances, this would be a reasonable objection.

However, just as you can't put an entire planet in a flask on a lab
bench, and watch life develop on it for billions of years, to test
evolution directly, you also can't put an entire planet in a flask on
a lab bench to discover how global climate works.

We do know that temperature has in fact risen over the last little
while

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.png

even as the carbon dioxide level has risen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...Dioxide-en.svg

and this is long enough to average over several La Nina/El Nino
cycles.

Yes, correlation is not causation. But there is a simple, direct,
mechanism for carbon dioxide to cause an increase in the Earth's
equilibrium temperature. Asking for scientific proof of _that_ *is* a
lot like asking for scientific proof that clothes can keep you warm.

We know that people are burning a lot of fossil fuels, putting extra
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - and, in fact, the CO2 level is
rising more slowly than that would imply. So we don't have evidence to
suggest that higher temperatures are causing the increased CO2 levels
- even if that is a possible feedback mechanism to make the results of
our contribution more disastrous.

Similarly, there is a simple direct mechanism by which cigarette
smoking can cause lung cancer. The "tar" in cigarette smoke contains
chemicals that damage the genetic machinery of cells. So we don't have
to go looking for a cancer-prone personality that makes people
likelier to smoke.

It is valid to ask for experimental verification of theories, and to
note that correlation is not causation. But these objections have been
abused by creationists and the cigarette industry, and your arguments
use these objections in the same inappropriate way as theirs did.

John Savard

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:06:11 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Note the many tactics of the pseudoscientist:

Funny, you claimed that AGW had equally good supporting evidence as did
evolution.

You are now trying to justify a different statement that an almost
equal
proportion of scientists support both.

Attempting to use insignificant differences in argument to discredit the
individual or his statements (once I said that evolution and AGW are
similarly accepted, a second time I said that evolution is 99% accepted
and AGW is 97% accepted).


So, just out of curiousity, do you think that AGW is as equally well
proven as evolution?

The evidence at present is that without including the effects of GHG
forcing it is not posisble to balance the energy equation for gloabl
temperatures. That is the Earth is hotter than it should be for the amount
of solar flux the satellites are measuring. The discreprancy climbed
steeply in the last four decades.

The greenhouse effect (an unfortunate name because it is misleading about
the physics) is proven beyond all doubt. The main questions now are
exactly how do some of the irreversible non-linear mechanisms work and at
what level do they trigger serious levels of positive feedback.

The albedo of snow at the poles against open water makes an important
contribution to our present climate. Lose it and you can get a step change
in the power input absorbed at the ground. Exact extent of the problem
varies with the level and type of cloud cover.


The dark energy is liberated through crystals in the shape of naturally
occurring pyramids which operate non-linearly, allowing you to both look and
feel younger.


These are completely different statements; one is about scientific
evidence,
the other is about the popularity of different theories.

Deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of scientific consensus, and
downplaying its critical role in determining the relative value of
scientific theories.

I get the fact that you believe in climate science because most other
people do.

I expect like me Chris has the background and the resources to look at any
scientific paper he wishes on this subject.

Great.

Have you got one which predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed 1820s
data?

I just want to see if any of them predict cooling, ever, or whether they are
all hardwired to produce only warming.

Also, some papers which compare past predictions of climate with measured
results would be great; my main problem with climate science is this whole
agreement between theory and experiment thing.



I don't believe in climate science because the models don't match
experimental data.

You will have to be more specific. The climate science models do have
significant predictive power.


Well, gee, OK. Ten years ago it was 1999. What were the predictions of the
main climate models of 1999 for the world tempertaure over the last 10
years? To what confidence level do they exceed chance?

I would ask the same of the models used for the Kyoto protocol, which was 2
years earlier.

I hope that's not too specific - really any experimental evidence at all
would be a good start.



The problems arise from determining the sensitivity of some of the
feedbacks. The IPCC models are arguably a bit on the conservative side.
When Nature did an ensemble of wider parameter models far worse things
happened in some of the outliers.

Nature did an ensemble of wider parameter models?



That you did not even attempt to justify your original claim about
supporting evidence for AGW is noted.

Always placing the burden of proof on the consensus opinion.

Of course the burden of proof is on the believers in AGW; they are the
ones running around saying the sky is falling in. For that matter, the
burden of proof is always on the people proposing a theory.

No. We are not saying that the sky is falling in. The scientific evidence
for AGW is strong, but hard to sum up in 10 second sound bite.

The *BIG* problem here is that the sky is getting very slightly lower with
time. AGW will happen on a timescale that politicians find extremely
difficult to deal with (ie more than 10 years - heck our lot right now
find planning for the next day too difficult).


And of course that's a *BIG* advantage to climate scientists, many of whom
make predictions about what the weather will be like long after they are
dead, and hence will never see their theories disproven ....

Tell me about other predictions that have been made about how the world will
end in 100 years unless something is done immediately that have ever been
shown to be true?



Is AGW as well proven as evolution, as you stated? Where is the
equivalent
of the discoveries from gene sequencing of common genes amongst species
believed to share recent common ancestors?

Continually ignoring powerful evidence presented in discussion (I didn't
waste my time presenting any, but other people gave some nice examples,
and you haven't responded to them at all.)

You seem to know a little about climate science.

I am aware that there are lots of computer models of how the earth warms
and cools. Which is the correct one? What is the scientific consensus of
what the most accurate computer model is? Which one is generally believed
correct, that I can have a look at?

There are a few that you can play with to get a rough feel for what will
happen in the simpler cases. It is incredibly difficult to fry the
planet - I know I have tried and even with my best efforts the poles were
still just about habitable. I have posted links to a few of them here
before (and also in s.e.d).


Gee, that sounds like fun.

What I would do is use Fourier analysis to extract any low frequency signal,
then polynomial fit the difference. I can easily make the poles
uninhabitable for you.


Gee, so as evidence for AGW, you talk about what non-scientists do.

Deliberate misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the point of
arguments.

I thought you were talking about what non-scientists (specifically
advertising companies) do, but you snipped the context, so we will never
know.


Just out of curiosity, and as you avoided answering the question, do
you
still believe that the AGW theory is as well proven as evolution
theory?

Continual restatement of questions long since answered, as a diversion
from answering anything substantive.


Gee, you spent 2 lines evading a simple yes or no question.

Is AGW as well suported by evidence as the theory of evolution through
natural selection? It was your comparison, after all ...

Close enough that I would view with great suspicion anyone arguing against
AGW who could not propose an alternative mechanism to explain the most
recent 150 years of historical climate data.

But you have not provided any evidence of the models actually predicting
future climate successfully. In fact, as I understand it, there are hundreds
of models, and none of them agree with each other, and none of them have
ever produced correct results when presented with novel data. In many cases,
their predictions are associated with "high", "medium" and "low"
possibilities, which allow almost any outcome to be determined a success. I
can get more specific advice from a telephone psychic than I get from a
climate model.



I think you have been suckered by the CO2 lags climate change in the
historical record trick. It is a true scientific statement. But it is
being used as a part of a well known fallacy in the AGW debate.

CO2 solubility in the oceans is affected by rising temperature - so if the
planet warms on average more CO2 will be in the atmosphere and less
dissolved in the oceans.

But if we emit additional CO2 (which is a powerful IR absorber) the planet
warms because of that and then the CO2 solubility in the oceans is still
decreased leading to a further release. It gets even nastier if we manage
to thaw the Arctic permafrost since that will release large amounts of
methane - a far more potent but short lived GHG.

We can incidentally distinguish between fossil fuel CO2 and the stuff in
the natural cycle because of the way photosynthesis concentrates the
lighter isotopes.


I didn't mention any of this stuff, but I knew it already, thankyou.

I don't really feel I need to know much more about climate science theory as
such; I know the connections between CO2, ocean acidity, albedo,
vulcanisation and cloud cover are deep and mystical. My lack of knowledge is
where the theory has been experimentally verified.


Here is what you said: "Whether or not it fails before 1850 [during a
coling period] really isn't relevant."

You latch on to random cherry picked points and labour them. Vulcanism
plays a certain part in climatic behaviour - Tamborra in 1816 year without
a summer and more of interest to me Krakatoa in 1883-4-5.

Actually, prior to this post, I don't think I had mentioned volcanos, let
alone cherry picked data about them.



http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/G.../page2972.html

Toba is generally reckonned to be the volcano that very nearly wiped out
humanity - cutting our ancestors gene pool down to a small set.

As does the variation in the Earths orbital elements and continental
drift. These longer term geological timescales are important mainly over
millenia. Although there is some evidence that shorter timescale Keeling
tides may be able to cause short scale climate variability.


Yeah, yeah, I know, the theory is magnificently complicated, wheels within
wheels, almost but not quite perfect and complete, probably way to difficult
for me to even begin to comprehend ...

BTW, you haven't got to hand the predictions of climate made in 1999 for the
last 10 years and a comparison subsequent actual temperatures, do you? Or
the same deal for the last 20, 30 or 40 years?


Doesn't look like a misrepresentation to me. Looks pretty close to a
direct quote.

Here's another direct quote from you, in passing:

"Anybody who does deny this has little credibility- in the same way that
a denier of evolution is going to have a tough time being taken
seriously."

If they can demonstrate a coherent argument that improves the existing
models

Great. I have a polynomial fit for the last 200 years of climate data that
is accurate to within 0.1 degrees for every one of those years.

**** it. If neccesary, I will polynomial fit every single data point
exactly, which must guarantee me at least equal first place.


and shows why they may be wrong then they will be taken seriously. It is
for precisely this reason that Lindzen is not a typical denier for hire.
He is a good scientist and has made important contributions to climate
modelling. His Iris hypothesis is quite elegant - wrong as it turns out
when the idea was tested against observation but useful for refining the
models.

What! You think something is wrong if its predictions are tested against
observation and they don't agree? First time you have ever mentioned it as a
criteria.

So, tell me about climate science's succesful predictions so far. I promise
I won't giggle, or mention the great global cooling scare of the 1970s.





But if you look at Singer, Seitz, Idso et al you see a darker side of
"scientist" for sale - will testify to anything if the money is right.

Now, about your comparison of AGW to evolution ... do you still stand by
that, or were you having a small fit of religious inspiration, and
exaggerated somewhat?

I would, however, settle for a compromise that AGW is as well supported a
scientific theory as (say) string theory, or dark energy ... I can handle
being compared to a string theory denier, doesn't sound so bad.

You cannot deny it unless you can put something else in its place that
better explains the behaviour of our climate. If you have a better model
then lets see it


You want a model which better matches a certain data set?

You give me the data set, and I will give you a model which precisely
predicts it. You can't do any "better" than a perfect fit.


otherwise you are just a credulous fool taken in by a sophisticated public
disinformation campaign funded by Exxon and others.


Or maybe I just like to see evidence for extraordinary claims before
believing them. Really quite the opposite of "credulous", I would have
thought.


Regards,
Martin Brown

You should really learn some basic manners, and stop insulting people simple
because they don't believe the same scientific theory as you do.

On Sep 7, 8:33*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Have you got one which predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed 1820s
data?

I just want to see if any of them predict cooling, ever, or whether they are
all hardwired to produce only warming.

Also, some papers which compare past predictions of climate with measured
results would be great; my main problem with climate science is this whole
agreement between theory and experiment thing.



Curious,did you make a mistake and mean to say the Dalton minimum from
1796 to 1820? Since temperatures increased rapidly after 1820 a model
that "predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed 1820s data" would
definitely be out whack. I suggested earlier that you go to
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/ to get the documentation,
source code and test runs. A better site would be
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/Table.php. PCMDI is a climate
model inter-comparison data portal. The documentation for the models,
source and results are freely available. There you can determine for
yourself if "they are all hardwired to produce only warming". They
are not but again you aren't interested in facts.


The problem is that you are not interested in learning anything, admit
that you are parroting things you don't understand anything more
complicated than what a third grader is taught. After teaching
university level science for over 30 years I have run into a few
students like you and I've learned that nothing I or anyone else can
educated you. There was a very late night radio show host that said
you can help the unlearned, but you cannot fix stupid

Gee, you spent 2 lines evading a simple yes or no question.


Classic strawman. A simple yes or no answer isn't possible. A analogy
(Yes I know you don't understand, so ask you mommy or daddy for an
explanation) would be answer yes or no to the question "Have you
stopped beating your wife" If you answer yes, you are guilty of wife
beating, if you answer no you are guilty of wife beating. The proper
answer is I have never beat my wife, limiting your answer to yes/no
makes no sense. Just as your insistence on answering yes or no makes
no sense.