Why do you not trust the experts?

[jethro]

P3; re: USA figures, they were wrong, demonstratably so as was proved. Whether or not it changed the global picture is irrelevant although the fact that the 1930's were hotter than now is significant, how do we judge the extent beyond normal range if we do not accurately know the normal range? The point about the USA figures as far as distrust is concerned is simply if we have accurate data of the simplest forms and let's face it adding up temps measured is as simple as it gets in climatology, if we cannot do this accurately then how the hell can we have faith in the accuracy of the vast range of unknowns we need to measure? And yet these unknowns are presented with such a degree of confidence.....

The CA? Who he/them?

Work of art? Irrelevance? If any scientist (qualified, peer reviewed etc) is falsifying data and this data is included and endorsed by the IPCC then it throws doubt on the confidence of the findings of the IPCC report surely? At the very least, questions their editing, peer review process? Let's not forget here, that report is the basis of any government response to climate change; in the world of AGW it doesn't really get any more important than that. No one should be able to pick holes in that report.

It's not a question of who I believe, where I go for information, it's the fact that that information is out there, errors have been found and they shouldn't have been. It "smacks" of shoddy work, they had plenty of time, enormous resources to ensure the work stood up to criticism and yet still errors are reported?? It's precisely this kind of thing which leads to mistrust.

[snowsure]

2.2+2.4=4.6

Rounded we can say that 2+2=5

My model works, doesn't it?

[Devonian]

2.2+2.4=4.6

Rounded we can say that 2+2=5

My model works, doesn't it?

It does.

You've put the data into it and it's come up with an answer. Now, the suggestion above is that if you run it again you should, some times get a very different answer. Again, my question is why?

[VillagePlank]

If I am totally honest, I would answer the question 'Why do you not trust the (climate) scientists?' in the following manner:

I am reading a book called Simplexity at the moment, and the author, Kluger, makes a very good point about general perceptions of people about people's societal roles. Paraphrased (the book's at home not in my office) he asks the question whether a CEO is any more skilled than the manual labourer working for him. Sure the talents are different, but is the gulf in salary really indicitative of the worth of a person? (this is rhetoric, btw, I really don't want to get into a debate) In the same way is the reputation of someone somehow indicitave of the quality of work?

Personally, I find it very difficult to discern between what is 'good' science, and what is 'bad' science. Historically, of course, there is a known test for good and bad science, but I cannot see how it applies to climatology. Some people believe that it was Galileo who first wrote about the scientific method. In fact, it wasn't; it was a little known fellow called William Gilbert of Colchester. In his book, De Magnete, he writes - and was the first person to do so - about the validity of a claim relying on the testing of hypotheses by rigorous experimentation

Well, we don't have a spare atmosphere to do the experiments in. We do have computer modelling, but it is well known that even rounding errors produce significant problems when dealing with non-linear mathematics. What granularity is the climate system? 0.5deg, horizontally, perhaps? Well, this is equivalent to 34.5 miles? Do we know that the climate can change inside 34 miles. Of course it can! Due to the limitations of computing (not the scientists) we have had to round up the experiment.

So do I trust the scientists? Yes, I do in so much as to conclude they are not actively deceiving anyone.

Do I trust their output? Not sure. I think there are significant problems in the methods that are used to verify a hypothesis.

Edited October 3, 2007 by VillagePlank

[noggin]

2.2+2.4=4.6

Rounded we can say that 2+2=5

My model works, doesn't it?

That is amazing! I shall be trying this out on people, it's quite made my morning.

[BrickFielder]

Temperature records

There have been a number of claims about temperature records in this thread which may mislead. After adjustments and checking all records point to a warming having occured in the last 50 years. The following graph I picked up from he US Climate Change Science Program Report which actually talks a great deal about the inaccuracies of the temperature records.

There clearly have been some problems which have now been largely addressed, however the report does bring up a few issues. Namely that at lower stratospheric levels there is a clear volcanic signature.

CCSP Report

The report also points out that there are clear signatures for natural forcings as well Anthropological.

The total change is therefore 0.11 times 4.7 decades to give a total change of 0.53ºC.

It shows that many factors – both natural and human-related – have probably contributed to these changes. Quantifying the relative importance of these different climate forcings is a difficult task. Analyses of observations alone cannot provide us with definitive answers. This is because there are important uncertainties in the observations and in the climate forcings that have affected them. Although computer models of the climate system are useful in studying cause-effect relationships, they, too, have limitations..

Hindcast Model Accuracy

There have been a lot of claims that model hindcast accuracy for global temperatures is good , however there are a number of recent reports which show that in some respects the model accuracy is not as good as we are led to believe. The following graph is from the CCSP report showing hindcast modelling results for a number of models.

I don't think I would go as far as Roger Pielke's assessment .

The report authors found that over the 25-year satellite record, the surface and the midtroposphere each warmed roughly 0.15°C per decade averaged over the globe, give or take 0.05°C or so per decade. The tropics proved to be an exception: The models called for more warming aloft than at the surface lately, whereas most observations showed the reverse. Reconciling that discrepancy will have to wait for the next round of synthesis and assessment.A very significant conclusion from the CCSP Report, therefore, is that the multi-decadal global climate predictions have demonstrated NO skill at predicting regional surface and tropospheric temperature trends.

Roger Pielke's assessment

The future of Climate Modelling

Looking at the University of Berkeley views on climate modelling then they identify a number of areas where the models need to be improved , including the Feedback of cloud formation patterns as a result of warming , biological feedback responses to warming and soil moisture feedbacks.

Current climate models are a blunt tool. We want to sharpen that tool.The physics of clouds and aerosols remains a major challenge in climate modeling. We can't build a cloud in a box, because we don't understand the physics well enough.For example, soil moisture is a major uncertainty in climate models. What will happen when we start growing large expanses of biofuel plants.We need to know a lot more about the biology of the ocean carbon cycle.The role of soils in the terrestrial carbon cycle remains poorly understood.

Berkeley Lab and Climate Change

What the scientist think

There have been claims and counter claims that scientist believe in AGW and P3 pointed out a poll done by Roger Pielke.

I did include some quotes in my post from the poll produced by Roger and P3 but by request I have removed them untill final publication has been approved. Perhaps I can hint that the polled scientists mostly belived in AGW although their is some disquiet about the IPCC findings and the effects of CO2.

(Link removed by request of P3)

Edited October 3, 2007 by BrickFielder

[parmenides3]

This is an attempt to summarise a few of the points made in the past day or two. My apologies if anyone thinks this misrepresents their position: I'm trying to get at the nob of the question why some of us don't 'trust the experts'.

What do these 'sources of mistrust' amount to?

[*]Most obvious are the number of people who think that the data being used, or the methods being used to turn the data into models, is flawed, or imperfect.

1. Does this not amount to the same as the claim that the people doing the work are incompetent? The implication is that these 'experts' are bad enough at their jobs not to know how to collect and evaluate data, how to apply formulae to this data, or to take scientific uncertainties (error bars, probabilities, for example). I would ask people who are making this claim to explain how such people got their positions in universities and organisations in the first place? I would also ask how it is that their output is deemed to be sufficiently rigorous to meet the standards of academic publishing, if it is so inept? I would also ask if they really believe that there are tens of thousands of specialists in atmospheric chemistry and physics, oceanography, palaeography, meteorology and computer science, who are equally inept, and in the same direction? As has been said before, 'climate science' is not a single discipline, but a combination of a number of precise specialisations, which have to be joined together to get any output at all.

[*]Then there is the suggestion that climate science is in some way an 'inferior' science, practised by second-rate scientists.

2. I am not sure what to say about this claim, which isn't covered in my other responses, except that, of course, I disagree. AFAIK, the vast majority of people involved in this work are first specialists, physicists, etc., and second specialists in a climate-related area, such as atmospheric physics. Is it credible to believe that the people who are in these specialisations are invariably the least competent? Surely, if these people are motivated by 'jumping on the climate bandwagon', this must suggest that the best money, and therefore the greatest competition for places, exists in this discipline; why, under such circumstances, would departments choose the worst candidates?

[*]Then there is the perception that there exists a substantial number of scientists in some disciplines (though still a minority) who disagree with the 'mainstream' climate science 'picture'.

3. This is a peculiar claim here, in the sense that it is testable and has been tested. Some of you will know that I have been involved in the testing of this claim. Speaking from my results, I can say that there are a good-sized minority of scientists who are dissatisfied with the representation of the science of climate change as given by the IPCC. Some of these think the IPCC exaggerates the role of CO2, others that it underestimates the impact of climate change; the dissatisfaction exists on either side of the 'mainstream', which is what you might expect. The number of scientists who would agree that climate change is basically natural and not human-induced is miniscule; this result comes from testing in five different disciplines. I found no evidence that there was any discipline in which a substantial number of scientists dissented with the 'mainstream' view.

[*]Finally, for now, the suggestion that climate science is uniquely influenced 'in the process' by political pressure to produce certain results in favour of a particular conclusion.

4. All of the evidence which has so far come to light (principally in the USA), relating to political pressure on climate science, points to a systematic attempt by the Bush administration to suppress the conclusions which point to AGW, which is the diametric opposite to this claim. If this evidence has become available, then surely, any evidence that the opposite process has been going on should be equally available; where is it?

Can these 'doubts' be further simplified?

It looks as if what is broadly being felt here is that people 'do not trust the experts' because they believe that the experts, for one reason or another, are not doing their jobs properly, or especially well, either from innate inability, or because of circumstantial pressures on them to produce biased results.

Does this amount to the belief that climate science is itself an intrinsically flawed area of study/research? It seems to. Some of us don't trust the science because we think it isn't very 'good' science.

If this is right, I think it is an interesting result. It suggests that there is a perception problem for the people engaged in the relevant disciplines and specialisations. I say this to avoid 'passing judgement' on whether I think it is true or false; there is no need here. What is more important, perhaps, is to address the question why some of us think that 'climate science is bad science', perhaps on a new thread...

Thanks to everyone for expressing their point of view: I really feel that we have seen some real process of development towards understanding one of the problems facing climate science on this thread. I am sure the discussion is not over, either, and I'd like to hear what people think of my summary so far, as well as any other thoughts.

:)P

EDIT: TO Brickfielder: please can you remove the link to MY paper (Roger is the third author), so I don't get into trouble before it has even been published...

Thank you, :)P

Edited October 3, 2007 by parmenides3

[Admiral_Bobski]

P3, I think your summary does reflect certain people's views, but I think you have misinterpreted some of the "complaints". I, and others, have certainly not made the assertion that somehow climate scientists are the dumbest scientists out there - what has been stated is that Climate Science is of a type that most people have not come across. Most people are familiar with experminental sciences (ones that perform experiments, compile the results and present the findings) and applied sciences (ones that, in a manner of speaking, produce tangible things). Theoretical sciences do not work in the same way: they are more abstract, more speculative in nature and far harder to pin down, at least until they are able to make definitive testable predictions (at which point the theory is passed on to the experimentalists).

It is not that climate scientists are incompetent, it is that their field of study does not lead to such cut and dried end results as the more familiar sciences. People are used to scientists coming up with ideas that, in the long run, they can use - computers, medicines, cell phones etc. They don't even know about the scientific process until they have a product on their doorstep. Now people are being introduced to the process that leads to the innovations, but without the benefit of there being an actual innovation at the end of it.

Nor is climate science an "inferior science", as you put it. It is, however, very much a work in progress.

You say that the "mainstream climate science picture" is testable and has been tested. This is probably for another thread, but what tests are there, and how have they been tested?

I think you have misrepresented the "complaints", or else you have not fully understood them.

CB

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I thought it was common knowledge why the 'drop off' in global temps post 1930's occurred (and why global temps were rising up until that point) To keep on banging on about the pre-Globally dimmed period as though it was an 'anomalous blip' tends to look foolish when you put the 'pre' temp rise graph hard up against the 'post' dimmed temp rise graph and see the continuity there.

The real issues should be the change in 'rate of change' from the late 90's onwards (surely?)

The perturbation cycle fits very snugly in there too GW...or would you say that El Nino and La Nina have zero global influence.

BFTP

Edited October 3, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Stratos Ferric]

And its this very lack of an alternative outcome that to me suggests there is a problem with the models. The fact that they do not show any other possible outcome than warming suggests to me that they are showing what the modeller wants them to show, not what the full range of possibilities may be.

A really unnecessary comparison, equating skeptisicsm with bigotry. Bigots have strongly held opinions. Some people have reasons for strongly held opinions. Therefore those without reasons for their strongly held opinions are bigots. Syllogistic reasoning at it best.

Re point 1: I think it was Einstein who said that when looking at the reason for something, the blindingly obvious should not be dismissed. Could it just be that the fact that all the sensitivity analyses say warm because that is the likely outcome. We have to admit, that over th past ten years, there's no evidence to the contrary.

Re point 2: I think what I said stacks up. Many a bigot has an unreasoned position. I didn't say all skeptics were bigots, though I think - by the dictionary definition - that some are (equally, so may be some of the AGW community), I think you're misreading precisely what I carefully wrote.

P3, I think your summary does reflect certain people's views, but I think you have misinterpreted some of the "complaints". I, and others, have certainly not made the assertion that somehow climate scientists are the dumbest scientists out there - what has been stated is that Climate Science is of a type that most people have not come across. Most people are familiar with experminental sciences (ones that perform experiments, compile the results and present the findings) and applied sciences (ones that, in a manner of speaking, produce tangible things). Theoretical sciences do not work in the same way: they are more abstract, more speculative in nature and far harder to pin down, at least until they are able to make definitive testable predictions (at which point the theory is passed on to the experimentalists).

It is not that climate scientists are incompetent, it is that their field of study does not lead to such cut and dried end results as the more familiar sciences. People are used to scientists coming up with ideas that, in the long run, they can use - computers, medicines, cell phones etc. They don't even know about the scientific process until they have a product on their doorstep. Now people are being introduced to the process that leads to the innovations, but without the benefit of there being an actual innovation at the end of it.

Nor is climate science an "inferior science", as you put it. It is, however, very much a work in progress.

You say that the "mainstream climate science picture" is testable and has been tested. This is probably for another thread, but what tests are there, and how have they been tested?

I think you have misrepresented the "complaints", or else you have not fully understood them.

CB

Not so CB. The point is that it takes far longer for the results to be borne out. The study of climate has just as much empricism, and arguably more, than, say, behavioural science. With climate you would expect the same result every time if all ther other factors are constant - it's simple physics, albeit writ very large. With behaviour one would not; ditto medicine come to that.

The problem with climate, pure and simple, is one of scale, in all four dimensions.

2.2+2.4=4.6

Rounded we can say that 2+2=5

My model works, doesn't it?

Which would be true if it weren't for the fact that the mathematical norm - and I'd like to think that the modellers are savvy to this - is to round the answer to one d.p. less than the granularity of the calculation.

Hence, whilst your point seems smart, it is flawed in that it breaches the normal convention, which would be, 2.2 + 2.4 = 4.6 which rounds to 5. If you want to round the inputs then, properly, it would be 2 + 2 = 4 +/- 1.

[Gray-Wolf]

The perturbation cycle fits very snugly in there too GW...or would you say that El Nino and La Nina have zero global influence.

BFTP

I would certainly say they used to have influence but I'm not so sure as to how things will pan out over the next 50 /60yrs. As you know I'm personally convinced I saw a weak El-Nino moderated into a null/weak La Nina over the end of last years Antarctic melt with a large meltwater outflow clearly 'trackable' as it moved out of the Ross sea and up over the the Campbell plateau (causing the N.Z. -ve anomalies) and off into the tropical Pacific.

We have been schooled in the idea that G.W. will bring stronger El Nino events but I'd say not whilst Antarctica ablates and influences cold ,bottom upwelling in the Equatorial regions.

As for it being responsible for the warm 30's? 10yr anomaly? pretty long for an El-Nino event (Esp. if you look to the 98 event and it's affects on global temps/longevity)

[Stratos Ferric]

Morning GW, from what I've read it isn't that simple, there's quite a large on-going debate in scientific circles about this one, dimming isn't universally accredited with cooling, it warms too. The post 90's sharp increase is thought in part to be due to the dimming qualities being reduced due to the changes in particulate pollution; that sharp step up in temps is, if you like emphasised and exagerrated to a degree because of this.

Dimming might be working either way. As I've mentioned previously, post 9/11 the global temperature spiked up because we had clearer skies. Whilst we have reduced, in some partd of the world, heavy aerosols, we have introduced in volume others much higher in the atmosphere.

[VillagePlank]

The problem with climate, pure and simple, is one of scale, in all four dimensions.

Indeed. And the 'problem' with the output from climatologists is the understanding that we don't yet have the capability to measure the system sufficiently enough to presume good inputs to an already coarse gridded computer model (which is why, effectively, we have ensemble runs - which answers Devonian's earlier question)

Edited October 3, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Stratos Ferric]

Indeed. And the 'problem' with the output from climatologists is the understanding that we don't yet have the capability to measure the system sufficiently enough to presume good inputs to an already coarse gridded computer model (which is why, effectively, we have ensemble runs - which answers Devonian's earlier question)

Yes.

But, with each passing year in which no alternative orthodoxy emerges (for all the enduring optimism of the autumnal winter threads here on N-W), the case for that alternative weakens.

Amusingly, just as there are always people in the winter thread saying, "but this year will be different", and, "cold air was nearby", and, "...but this year we've got NAO, QBO, Nina / Nino and a 27 year low point..." so there will always be people arguing that, no matter how much higher the temperature spike goes, 'it could be natural'.

I think I related the tale on here once before, told in "Skinner's Box" (a study of ten famous psychological lab experiments), about testing adherence to authority - the famous test to check why so many Nazis were willing to slaughter so many innocents despite knowing what they were doing to be wrong, anyway... - and the author's extrapolation of this to blind faith and cults. She relates an amusing tale of a cult gathered with their leader to celebrate the end of the world, as I recall on New Year's Eve 1999, and how they were going to be rescued by an alien space-ship just before the end. The press and media were gathered, and, well, it clearly didn't happen. Anyway, the leader of the cult was ready with his reasons...don't worry, we got the data wrong, and the members / followers nodded at the sage words...

There's all of life...

[parmenides3]

P3, I think your summary does reflect certain people's views, but I think you have misinterpreted some of the "complaints". I, and others, have certainly not made the assertion that somehow climate scientists are the dumbest scientists out there - what has been stated is that Climate Science is of a type that most people have not come across. Most people are familiar with experminental sciences (ones that perform experiments, compile the results and present the findings) and applied sciences (ones that, in a manner of speaking, produce tangible things). Theoretical sciences do not work in the same way: they are more abstract, more speculative in nature and far harder to pin down, at least until they are able to make definitive testable predictions (at which point the theory is passed on to the experimentalists).

It is not that climate scientists are incompetent, it is that their field of study does not lead to such cut and dried end results as the more familiar sciences. People are used to scientists coming up with ideas that, in the long run, they can use - computers, medicines, cell phones etc. They don't even know about the scientific process until they have a product on their doorstep. Now people are being introduced to the process that leads to the innovations, but without the benefit of there being an actual innovation at the end of it.

Nor is climate science an "inferior science", as you put it. It is, however, very much a work in progress.

You say that the "mainstream climate science picture" is testable and has been tested. This is probably for another thread, but what tests are there, and how have they been tested?

I think you have misrepresented the "complaints", or else you have not fully understood them.

CB

Sorry, C-Bob; if I've got it wrong, it's my error in understanding, though I will point out that I was trying to reduce several mixed responses down into 'edible' form. From what you say here, your 'doubts' arise from what you understand to be the nature of climate science; it is theoretical (or abstract) and not experimental, its products are hypotheses which (as yet) are not properly tested, and that it is a 'work in progress'. Is this correct?

This seems to amount to a claim that 'climate science' is not yet sufficiently 'mature' as an area of study to be properly counted as 'real science', plus the claim that it does not/has not yet made defintive testable predictions (for those who don't know, this is one of the definitions which is commonly used to define what 'science' is) which can prove or disprove the various hypotheses.

I do have responses to this, but perhaps that's for another thread; I'm not sure. Is it acceptable to posit the question; 'Is 'climate science' 'real' science?

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry, C-Bob; if I've got it wrong, it's my error in understanding, though I will point out that I was trying to reduce several mixed responses down into 'edible' form. From what you say here, your 'doubts' arise from what you understand to be the nature of climate science; it is theoretical (or abstract) and not experimental, its products are hypotheses which (as yet) are not properly tested, and that it is a 'work in progress'. Is this correct?

This seems to amount to a claim that 'climate science' is not yet sufficiently 'mature' as an area of study to be properly counted as 'real science', plus the claim that it does not/has not yet made defintive testable predictions (for those who don't know, this is one of the definitions which is commonly used to define what 'science' is) which can prove or disprove the various hypotheses.

I do have responses to this, but perhaps that's for another thread; I'm not sure. Is it acceptable to posit the question; 'Is 'climate science' 'real' science?

:)P

That's almost what I'm saying, P3, but not quite. Your first paragraph seems like a pretty fair summation. However, you say: "This seems to amount to a claim that 'climate science' is not yet sufficiently 'mature' as an area of study to be properly counted as 'real science'. This is wrong - I am not saying that it isn't a real science. That's like saying that one of Da Vinci's cartoons isn't a real work of art - it's a work in progress. As with the cartoons, it isn't fleshed out, it's still open to interpretation and there's a great deal of scope for parts of it to be wrong. It could even be disposed of entirely and started again.

So I think the question "Is climate science a "real" science" is an unfair one. A better question would be "Is climate science complete enough to be accepted as fact?"

CB

PS - quote from SF:

Not so CB. The point is that it takes far longer for the results to be borne out. The study of climate has just as much empricism, and arguably more, than, say, behavioural science. With climate you would expect the same result every time if all ther other factors are constant - it's simple physics, albeit writ very large. With behaviour one would not; ditto medicine come to that.

If the results are not yet borne out then we have a real problem, since we do not know if the proposed results match the actual results. Which brings the problem back round to "AGW is untested".

[Admiral_Bobski]

So, to go off on a complete tangent (and playing devil's advocate) if we accept that the science is not yet proved/unproven, does that mean we should do nothing until it is? Why does it matter whether AGW is real or not?

I'll be very interested in the responses, because it has always seemed to me that doing something to reduce pollution, improve the environment, conserve energy, etc, etc is something we should be doing anyway for a number of immediate political, environmental and societal reasons, irrelevant of whether it helps AGW.

If I may refer you back to my original post on this thread - the point of this debate is to determine facts, and I'm not really interested in whether we should or shouldn't do anything about it (not as far as this debate is concerned, anyhow). All too often we have these arguments and in lieu of actually resolving anything somebody says "does that mean we should do nothing" or words to that effect. It's a meaningless and irrelevant way of getting out of arguing the actual point.

CB

Edited October 3, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

...there are always people in the winter thread saying, "but this year will be different", and, "cold air was nearby", and, "...but this year we've got NAO, QBO, Nina / Nino and a 27 year low point..." so there will always be people arguing that, no matter how much higher the temperature spike goes, 'it could be natural'.

This has always bothered me.

True some years have overriding factors such as El Nino (or whatever) but surely the future in teleconnections relies almost solely on the relationship between them all? Whilst one can read that this one or that one will be the overriding favourite this time around, and, therefore, it is virtually certain that we will be inundated with snow this coming season, the overriding factor changes from year to year. How is one to make sense of which of them one should look at?

Is this because, like climatology, that teleconnections are such a young science, and that some relationships are just too poorly understood to be used as predictive tools?

Perhaps this is another reason to be rather sceptical about climatological claims about the future?

However, as you say SF, the recent past demonstrates a warming trend.

Edited October 3, 2007 by VillagePlank

[BrickFielder]

1 Most obvious are the number of people who think that the data being used, or the methods being used to turn the data into models, is flawed, or imperfect.

Some of the criteria that goes into a climate model is a best guess this is not that the experts involved are incompetent it is just that some areas have not been fully researched. For example the changes in plankton bloom due to warming and its feedback on the carbon cycle and climate.In effect there are areas of climate change with incomplete knowledge.It is the model which is imperfect not individual expertise that goes to make up the model.

2 Then there is the suggestion that climate science is in some way an 'inferior' science, practised by second-rate scientists.

I would not argue that and don't think many would argue that. You could argue that some aspects of climate modelling need to mature and there are scientists work in fields currently outside climate control who perhaps should have more of an input into the modelling. Here I am thinking about mesosphere modelling and aspects of oceanography. It is what is missing from the modelling that raises concern.

3 Then there is the perception that there exists a substantial number of scientists in some disciplines (though still a minority) who disagree with the 'mainstream' climate science 'picture'.

Some scientists disagree with aspects of the mainstream picture but not the general overall view.The argument here is that there is enough disagreement in the probabilities boundaries of individual parameters that the stated probabilites boundaries of the whole is suspect. The concern is with the statistical arguments.

4 Finally, for now, the suggestion that climate science is uniquely influenced 'in the process' by political pressure to produce certain results in favour of a particular conclusion.

The idea is probably not that scientists deliberately set out with a bias but in the process of attaining research funding they may investigate avenues of research they may not have otherwise have done. The bias is in the reasearch funding.

[VillagePlank]

So, to go off on a complete tangent (and playing devil's advocate) if we accept that the science is not yet proved/unproven, does that mean we should do nothing until it is? Why does it matter whether AGW is real or not?

I'll be very interested in the responses, because it has always seemed to me that doing something to reduce pollution, improve the environment, conserve energy, etc, etc is something we should be doing anyway for a number of immediate political, environmental and societal reasons, irrelevant of whether it helps AGW.

I don't think there is a person of this forum who not agree that 'we should seek to limit our impact on the world'

[VillagePlank]

2.2+2.4=4.6

Rounded we can say that 2+2=5

My model works, doesn't it?

I'm sorry I couldn't contain myself .....

If you use symmetric arithmetic rounding then your model is fine. However this creates a bias in your rounding scheme. 1..4 are rounded down, and 5..9 are rounded up. This is unbalanced because over a distribution you'd expect more numbers to rounded up than rounded down.

However, if you use unbiased rounding (aka as banker's rounding) then you would have rounded to 2+2=4 which is statistically, and numerically correct.

Imagine if you'd used symmetric arithmetic rounding in a climate model?

(If you're really interested, and I sincerely hope that you don't have wade through all this stuff yourself, here's a good practical discussion affecting a 'not so far from home' issue.

Edited October 3, 2007 by VillagePlank

[HighPressure]

Sorry, C-Bob; if I've got it wrong, it's my error in understanding, though I will point out that I was trying to reduce several mixed responses down into 'edible' form. From what you say here, your 'doubts' arise from what you understand to be the nature of climate science; it is theoretical (or abstract) and not experimental, its products are hypotheses which (as yet) are not properly tested, and that it is a 'work in progress'. Is this correct?

This seems to amount to a claim that 'climate science' is not yet sufficiently 'mature' as an area of study to be properly counted as 'real science', plus the claim that it does not/has not yet made defintive testable predictions (for those who don't know, this is one of the definitions which is commonly used to define what 'science' is) which can prove or disprove the various hypotheses.

I do have responses to this, but perhaps that's for another thread; I'm not sure. Is it acceptable to posit the question; 'Is 'climate science' 'real' science?

:)P

Hi P3

I think that CB is putting a view closer to mine than the summary you originally posted, in a nutshell we do not know what we do not know! The majority of scientists on both sides are putting forward theories they honestly believe very few are deliberately trying to deceive anyone. So which experts should we believe the majority view? and if so why especially as science history is littered with the minority view eventually winning out? In actual fact I would say my crime is to actually except the views of climate experts but on both sides and in the middle of this debate.

I really don't know if I fit into any AGW category as I believe that CO2 is causing Warming, but its levels in our atmosphere can only be having what I see as an enhanced effect on climate due to underlying natural forces we are yet to fully understand. Simply that both camps can actually be right on this issue?

Edited October 3, 2007 by HighPressure

[jethro]

Hi P3

I think that CB is putting a view closer to mine than the summary you originally posted, in a nutshell we do not know what we do not know! The majority of scientists on both sides are putting forward theories they honestly believe very few are deliberately trying to deceive anyone. So which experts should we believe the majority view? and if so why especially as science history is littered with the minority view eventually winning out? In actual fact I would say my crime is to actually except the views of climate experts but on both sides and in the middle of this debate.

I really don't know if I fit into any AGW category as I believe that CO2 is causing Warming, but its levels in our atmosphere can only be having what I see as an enhanced effect on climate due to underlying natural forces we are yet to fully understand. Simply that both camps can actually be right on this issue?

And that in an eloquent nutshell, sums me up too. It's the either/or stance that drives me insane in all of this; the insistance that to question one bit means you automatically dismiss the lot, I don't believe that's the majority view at all.

[parmenides3]

I am going to put brick's replies to some climate scientists and see what they say: it should be entertaining. I'll let you know, of course, what their response (if anything) is...

:)P

[snowsure]

Hence, whilst your point seems smart, it is flawed in that it breaches the normal convention, which would be, 2.2 + 2.4 = 4.6 which rounds to 5. If you want to round the inputs then, properly, it would be 2 + 2 = 4 +/- 1.

Thank you. Your comment seems compimentary.

I was just having a bit of fun there. However, the point that I wanted to make is that the admiration of number is not shared by all people. I am glad that noggin liked it though. I aim to please!

However, many people do not understand statistical convention so they are not happy to know that 2+2=4 has a +/- 25% tolerance to be taken into account due to rounding errors. As such, some people will not accept anything other than hard fact that is consitently proven to be correct even under rigorous conditions.

People do right to have a healthy disregard for "random-science" but they do wrong to be wasteful of their money when it impacts on other peoples lives.

Make electricity 50 times more expensive and that will curtail peoples expenditure in that direction (Again I say, we will use the internet less. I still do not use my computer on a Sunday, thus reducing my carbon footprint and my electricity bill!)

Hard economics works much better than legislation, in my opinion. (Unless legislation is backed up with a judicial system that is effective!)