[paraclete]

Tut ;don't you think that by definition 'consensus ' is anti-scientific by nature ....especially when the concensus scientists control the media where their hypothesis should meet the falsifiable test ? Part of the most disturbing aspects of Climategate is the coordinated efforts to purge the publication of material that falsifies their work ;and to limit peer review to those that affirm their results.

Tom it is always the same with academia, a sense of ownership of the discipline, nooneelse has any authority or any right to question their absolute authority until they decide they have been wrong, except in this case there is no discipline just a lot of computer geeks doing some modelling and very incomplete modelling at that. I just have one comment bah humbug!

[TUT317]

Tut ;don't you think that by definition 'consensus ' is anti-scientific by nature ....especially when the concensus scientists control the media where their hypothesis should meet the falsifiable test ? Part of the most disturbing aspects of Climategate is the coordinated efforts to purge the publication of material that falsifies their work ;and to limit peer review to those that affirm their results.

Hi Tom,

Very difficult question to answer.

Is it unscientific? Could be. A scientific consensus is not necessarily arrived at via the scientific method. Yes, a scientific consensus can the result of a shared political opinion.

Falsifiability is a great idea in the scientific and political world. Popper saw his method as an epistemology. Well, in theory anyway. When it comes to politics people are not generally in the mood to consider their ideas subject to falsification ( I haven't seen it here in this forum, left or right). It seems science suffers from the same problem.



Tut

[speechlesstx]

The Goracle is coming unglued. Not the first time mind you but he seems especially frustrated now that most people don't believe in his scheme, 69 percent believe scientists have falsified the research and in light of the new NASA study (aren't they the same scientists he's relied on before?) that blows a huge hole in the consensus opinion.

Mr. Gore has countered not with research but with screaming "BULLSH*T"!

Al Gore calls B.S. on climate change naysayers ...

The model they’re using in that effort was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: “This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.” Bullsh*t! “It may be sun spots.” Bullsh*t! “It’s not getting warmer.” Bullsh*t!

There are about ten other memes out there. When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted this — There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! And yet our ability to actually come to a shared reality that emphasizes that this matters — It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the godd**n word “climate.” They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.

Attaboy Al, if junk science won't convince us to follow your dream, screaming and cursing at us will.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, then. You can continue to throw your trash into the air and be GUILT free about it. We can continue to use ever more expensive oil and send our treasury over to Arabia. And, we can let the industry that's going to BE the moneymaker in this century, GO to China.

Now, I don't know why a right winger would embrace policies like that, but I don't know why right wingers do much of anything.

Personally, I don't CARE about Gore, or about his ideas or fortunes. You see, it doesn't take scientists for me to know that throwing your trash into the air isn't a good idea. To ME, it matters NOT, who delivers the message, but whether the message is credible.. Gore's is, and I don't care if only HE and I believe it.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, then. You can continue to throw your trash into the air and be GUILT free about it.

You really need to do away with that straw man. It doesn't become any more true the more you say it, though it does follow today's Democrats' strategy, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.

To ME, it matters NOT, who delivers the message, but whether the message is credible.. Gore's is, and I don't care if only HE and I believe it.

And here I thought you liked science.

[tomder55]

The Goracle is hot and bothered because he staked his future wealth on being on the ground floor of the carbon tax trading industry.

[excon]

69 percent believe scientists have falsified the research

Hello again, Steve:

What's your point? 58% of Republicans don't believe Obama is a citizen.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

What's your point? 58% of Republicans don't believe Obama is a citizen

And 72 percent of progressives thought Bush was going to install a theocracy before the 2008 election. The point was already made, such numbers depress Mr. Gore so now he's throwing tantrums.

[paraclete]

The numbers depress me but I'm not throwing a tantrum. Reality is, even if the "climate scientists" are right, (BIG IF) nothing we do is going to reverse the trend. So MR Gore can rant and rave all he likes, it doesn't change the fact that he has been on the B/S end of climate facts

[TUT317]

The Goracle is coming unglued. Not the first time mind you but he seems especially frustrated now that most people don't believe in his scheme, 69 percent believe scientists have falsified the research and in light of the new NASA study (aren't they the same scientists he's relied on before?) that blows a huge hole in the consensus opinion.

Mr. Gore has countered not with research but with screaming "BULLSH*T"!


Al Gore calls B.S. on climate change naysayers ...



Attaboy Al, if junk science won't convince us to follow your dream, screaming and cursing at us will.

Hi speech,

The words, "alarmist computer model" is being thrown around rather frequently in various articles. My guess is that an alarmist model is a worse case scenario model. In other words, there would be a number of competing models.

It is unlikely that this will blow a hole in the consensus simply because I think 'the consensus' at the moment is partly based on science and partly based on politics. In other words, it hard to demonstrate to any particular group that their politics is wrong.


Tut

[paraclete]

So it is naysayers 1 Gore Nil we will just take a timeout in the game to review the state of play;

Atmosphere doesn't heat as much from CO2 emissions as predicted
Trees trap more CO2 than thought
Ocean traps more CO2 than thought
Cities vegetation trap more CO2 than thought
Data has been manipulated
Long term trends have been ignored

So it adds up to models that are not worth the time and effort to produce them. Of course Mr Gore is furious, all that lovely money is flying away.

Now perhaps we can get down to debating which technologies should be pursued on economic grounds

[TUT317]

So it is naysayers 1 Gore Nil we will just take a timeout in the game to review the state of play;

Atmosphere doesn't heat as much from CO2 emissions as predicted
Trees trap more CO2 than thought
Ocean traps more CO2 than thought
Cities vegetation trap more CO2 than thought
Data has been manipulated
long term trends have been ignored

So it adds up to models that are not worth the time and effort to produce them. of course Mr Gore is furious, all that lovely money is flying away.

Now perhaps we can get down to debating which technologies should be pursued on economic grounds

Hi Clete,

If you conclusion is that computer models are limited in their prediction potential then I think this is a fair assumption. At least you have not fallen into the trap of the author of the original article, 'New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole... '

I am sure there won't be a rethinking of the debate based on the NASA measurements for a number of reasons. Firstly, the author of the article commits the fallacy of modus tollens. In this case the absence of evidence doesn't prove the non-presence of something.

I think that any computer model based on the NASA data will suffer from the same problem as every other model. It will be just another competing model.

The problem will become, "which model to choose?". The answer will be to choose the model which best suits your political philosophy.

Tut

[paraclete]

The problem will become, "which model to choose?". The answer will be to choose the model which best suits your political philosophy.

Tut

Hi Tut I think we have already been down that road and found that the bridge is rotten. We don't need another model or to rely on the pseudo science of computer modelling. What we need to do is stand back and take a serious look at where we are and what our capabilities are. Both you and I live in a country with some ridiculous targets; a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050, The first target contributes nothing to reduction of world CO2 emissions and may even move production of coal/oil to countries which have no intention of making reductions and the second will cripple our economy for no result because nooneelse is doing this.

I refuse to sign on to the ideology of climate change just as I refused to sign on to the ideology of communism

[speechlesstx]

Hi speech,

The words, "alarmist computer model" is being thrown around rather frequently in various articles. My guess is that an alarmist model is a worse case scenario model. In other words, there would be a number of competing models.

It is unlikely that this will blow a hole in the consensus simply because I think 'the consensus' at the moment is partly based on science and partly based on politics. In other words, it hard to demonstrate to any particular group that their politics is wrong.


Tut

Thanks, I can certainly agree that the consensus is a mix of politics and science. If we can all agree on that much we have a starting point. Science shouldn't have a political agenda, and that's the crux of the 'deniers' message. In other words, Gore has the right word for it... but it should be aimed at him.

[paraclete]

Why don't we get back to talking about real science, i.e. observation, hypothesis, data and not the pseudo science of computer modelling where the outcome is a set of assumptions. These assumptions have been demonstrated not to have any resemblance to the real world and should be junked. Gore presented his own line of B/S which has been shown to be a very narrow view of a vast sea of knowledge, His conclusions are flawed and should be junked.

[TUT317]

Why don't we get back to talking about real science, ie observation, hypothesis, data and not the pseudo science of computer modelling where the outcome is a set of assumptions. These assumptions have been demonstrated not to have any resemblence to the real world and should be junked.

Hi Clete,

Unfortunately 'real science' (classical science) has shown to be inadequate when it is applied to climate change. This comes as no surprise because weather forecasting suffers from exactly the same problem.

The real world goes a lot deeper than classical science allows. It is realized that quantum effects (the extremely tiny) have implications for the world of the very large (real world). Classical predictions don't match Quantum predictions ( shown to be true using very basic experiments).

Unfortunately, quantum computer modelling is a long way off. In other words, we are stuck with what we have got.

Tut

[tomder55]

Yeah ;hide the decline here ;forget to read that indicator there ,manipulate it until it matches a predetermined conclusion;fudge a result here and there, suppress peer review . That's what passes for 21st century science.

[TUT317]

yeah ;hide the decline here ;forget to read that indicator there ,manipulate it until it matches a predetermined conclusion;fudge a result here and there, suppress peer review . That's what passes for 21st century science.

Hi Tom,

You have come up with a pretty massive generalization here. You mean 'what passes' for some scientists. It is not typical of 21century science.

I'm sorry you are disappointed in 21 st century science but science like everything else moves on. The Hockey Stick graph is now history; all be it an unfortunate part. Obviously some scientists suffered from weakness of will.

There has been and will continue to be new research and new data to crunch. Data is not from temperature alone. It can range from anything to lightning activity to shifts in ice packs. New ways of using new information is being created all the time. This is way we have so many competing models.

There doesn't seem to be a way deciding upon the best model because there seems to be a problem matching prediction with observation. No surprise here.

Tut

[paraclete]

Hi Tom,

Obviously some scientists suffered from weakness of will.

Do you really think that is what they suffer from Tut? I think they were all too willing to make outrageous pronostications out of ego, greed and stupidity. In any case I don't think these modellers are scientists because they didn't follow scientific disciple but worked in an opportunistic manner. They are charlatans!

If we cannot predict the weather with real accuracy more that a few days out what makes these idiots think they can predict the weather years in advance using statistics

[tomder55]

The same is true in other fields so climate scientists are in "good company" .