Global Warming Science: A Giant Farce

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

From your CB post:



The hubris in this post is so stunning, so laughable, that I hardly know where to begin.

The people elected to the National Academies of Science have distinguished academic careers and are generally the best and the brightest in their fields. Do you honestly believe that they could publish hundreds of articles in the top peer-reviewed academic journals and not understand basic statistics? Or that the whole process can be boiled down to a multi-variate regression analysis? You haven't a clue what the peer-review process is like or what degree of rigor is applied at this level of scientific research.

But wait! You have a bachelor's degree. From Brigham freakin' Young, by God. Not only that, you are over-qualified to dismiss all of this work. Sure, buddy.

So in other words, once again you have nothing to actually say about the specific problems mentioned about global warming science, you just go after the messenger. Par for the course for you.

Would you care to point out the most accurate predictive global climate model and its current track record?

Would you care to point me in the direction of any peer-reviewed article that claims to be able to show what the radiant solar energy of the sun was 100, 300, 1,000 or 15,000 years ago? What were those levels relative to 2008?

Would you care to show me the rigorous methodology used to be able to take accurate, credible temperature measurements across the globe beyond a couple of decades?

Would you care to explain to me how a very localized warming trend can justifiably be extrapolated out to catastrophic levels 100 years from now?

Would you care to explain how the last 10 years has been a net decrease in global mean temperature?

Would you care to demonstrate how even assuming there is a significant global climate shift underway how the underlying causes are in any way materially different than innumerable global climate shifts from the past when man didn't even exist?

Thanks in advance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

But lest that not dissuade you from the efficacy of peer-reviewing...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-B35D0842FED8

If found a quote from that link that seemed quite applicable given your above response

If the scientific case is so strong for predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming, why do its promoters like Hansen and his close ally Gore feel the need to resort to insults and intimidation when attempting to silence skeptics?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The hubris in this post is so stunning, so laughable, that I hardly know where to begin.

Plus, he takes the Lord's name in vain, which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So in other words, once again you have nothing to actually say about the specific problems mentioned about global warming science, you just go after the messenger. Par for the course for you.

One of the things that causes me to lean towards skepticism is the witch hunts that seem to follow any serious global warming skeptic. "All credible scientists agree with global warming", they tout. And if one does disagree, he is hounded into compliance, or discredited. Burn the heretic at the stake! Ruin his professional reputation! It's all for the good of all people, and for mother earth.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So in other words, once again you have nothing to actually say about the specific problems mentioned about global warming science, you just go after the messenger. Par for the course for you.

Don't be such a pussy, Indy. You called me out. Twice.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

Congratulations. You have demonstrated that the system is not perfect and a few bad papers get through from time to time. Now convince us that the system that is the basis of advancing modern science is worthless.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

But lest that not dissuade you from the efficacy of peer-reviewing...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-B35D0842FED8

If found a quote from that link that seemed quite applicable given your above response

This is a summary prepared by a staffer for Senator Inhofe. Hardly an unbiased source.

And what is your point? That the overall consensus is not 100%? Has anyone claimed that?

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Would you care to point out the most accurate predictive global climate model and its current track record?

Would you care to point me in the direction of any peer-reviewed article that claims to be able to show what the radiant solar energy of the sun was 100, 300, 1,000 or 15,000 years ago? What were those levels relative to 2008?

Would you care to show me the rigorous methodology used to be able to take accurate, credible temperature measurements across the globe beyond a couple of decades?

Would you care to explain to me how a very localized warming trend can justifiably be extrapolated out to catastrophic levels 100 years from now?

Would you care to explain how the last 10 years has been a net decrease in global mean temperature?

Would you care to demonstrate how even assuming there is a significant global climate shift underway how the underlying causes are in any way materially different than innumerable global climate shifts from the past when man didn't even exist?

Before I decide to expend the effort that would be required, let's establish some background.

Have you studied the pertinent literature in depth or are you relying on summaries? Are you familiar with the major articles and research studies generally regarded as foundational for the various sciences involved?

Have you taken advanced courses in chemistry and physics? Geology? Meteorology? Environmental systems? Mathematics?

Do you understand computational fluid dynamics? Have you studied partial differential equations? Linear algebra? Navier-Stokes equations?

Have you studied numerical modeling of physical systems? Finite element method? Finite difference method? Analytic/boundary elements? Inverse modeling/parameter estimation? Grid resolution issues? Boundary condition selection? Can you summarize the various types of governing equations used to simulate physical systems and the strengths and weaknesses of each? Do you understand implicit vs. explicit solution schemes for transient models?

Thanks in advance.

And one more thing. Why don't we start with you telling us the margin of error of a petition in establishing evidence of anything? You are usually the biggest critic of polls. Now you are promoting a petition as evidence?

[Indy Coug]

As far as "calling you out", the first time I had never seen anything you have ever written on this site that would indicate you knew anything about modeling. I said I could be mistaken. The second time you didn't respond to what I wrote, so I didn't know what you made of what I said.

Ooooohhhhh that was really calling you out, wasn't it?

The petition wasn't evidence of anything other than to indicate that there are growing signs more people are coming about against consensus position.

I've taken advanced classes in linear algebra, partial differential equations, stocastic modeling, experimental design, regression and time series analysis.

Since I don't want to take too much of your time, why don't you explain how you develop a predictive model for global climate and fit it against anything than a very narrow sliver of time? Are we to believe that a sufficiently robust climate model exists where we can go back in time and indirectly measure all of the identified factors and their interaction with one another as a means of validating the model?

This is the most fundamental question that needs to be answered. You can get as deep as you want into the highly technical world of fluid dynamics, CO2 studies, etc. etc. but unless you have a meaningful way to coalesce these individual components into a meaningful whole and have a means of validation, they have very limited value.

[Archaea]

I don't understand all of this, not even close, but could you answer the applicability of these concepts to climactic change?

Do you understand computational fluid dynamics? Have you studied partial differential equations? Linear algebra? Navier-Stokes equations?

I thought CFD applied to airplanes, air foils and space shuttles.

Navier-Stokes starts that system of analysis where one eliminates different factors to have even simpler equations. That's about all I remember, but then again I could be wrong.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't understand all of this, not even close, but could you answer the applicability of these concepts to climactic change?



I thought CFD applied to airplanes, air foils and space shuttles.

Navier-Stokes starts that system of analysis where one eliminates different factors to have even simpler equations. That's about all I remember, but then again I could be wrong.

I think it would relate to things like the jetstream, ocean currents and other climatic drivers.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think it would relate to things like the jetstream, ocean currents and other climatic drivers.

That's the only thing I could imagine, but given that fluids are dynamic, how could we make any meaningful predictions over time?

perhaps the brainiacs are succeeding, and from little I've understood about the supercomputers working on these projects, they are making advances.

As Lebowski has outlined, the amount of information to be digested, the level of expertise required and the breadth of the examination appears enormous. Perhaps he has experience and expertise in all those areas, but my guess, rank speculation, is it requires teams of persons coupling their knowledge together to come to meaningful conclusions. It looks downright impossible to make meaningful conclusions, but that's to an outsider.

And if that is true, how is it possible to have a consensus as to correlations?

I would like to know if Lebowski has the articles and journals which lead in this area, linked, so that I might not be so ignorant as I admit that I am.

[SoonerCoug]

I'm not a climatologist, but I think I have a pretty good idea about how science works. We have a great competitive system in our country. The best, most rigorous scientists are devoted to the truth, and these scientists end up being successful. Bad scientists have short careers.

I have no reason to believe that climatology in America is less rigorous than other sciences. Since I'm not a climatologist, I choose to trust the experts.

Critics need to come up with genuine, peer-reviewed data...or they need to just shut up and learn. If they aren't capable of testing hypotheses, then they have no room to talk.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

I'm not climatologist, but I think I have a pretty good idea about how science works. We have a great competitive system in our country. The best, most rigorous scientists are devoted to the truth, and these scientists end up being successful. Bad scientists have short careers.

I have no reason to believe that climatology in America is less rigorous than other sciences. Since I'm not a climatologist, I choose to trust the experts.

Critics need to come up with genuine, peer-reviewed data...or they need to just shut up and learn. If they aren't capable of testing hypotheses, then they have no room to talk.

As a general proposition, I agree with you.

But how am I as a lay person to know who is legitimate and who is not?

Lebowski states that Lindzen should not be trusted because he accepts some money in the early 1990s. Am I to believe that only Gore's people are to be trusted?

This is my dilemma as a lay person. Who is legitimate? How can I know?

And how do I discern bias?

I trust generally the scientific process, but I must be the only one who sees a potential for abuse or a skewing of findings in order to generate more research dollars.