Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

By the way, for a $1,000 an hour a bet scientists would be lining up to help disprove global warming in court.

Your comment reminded me of this:

[Omaha 680]

Time for Al Gore to sell his ocean front property while he can... NASA says we can't stop this:


http://www.latimes.com/science/envir...513-story.html

SpaceX may have to pull back that new launch pad a bit putting but it could have been worst if they went with Florida...

Who created that image? Wouldn't sea levels have to rise by a couple hundred feet (not 4) to cover florida? The elevation of Orlando is 95 feet or so.

[Moliere]

Who created that image? Wouldn't sea levels have to rise by a couple hundred feet (not 4) to cover florida? The elevation of Orlando is 95 feet or so.

Stop questioning science!!!

[Topper]

What an uphill battle for Lebowski in this thread.

The real problem is that most Americans have no idea what science is or how it works.

For those of you who are skeptics about global warming or the scientific method in general, I would recommend that you try to think about science like this:

Science is the opposite of religion in the sense that when you go to church, you try to have faith in centuries-old beliefs shared by a group. That faith may be based on tradition or your own personal feelings (e.g., the spirit).

When you go to the lab, you develop hypotheses or models and then try to disprove your own hypotheses. The religious equivalent would be to attend church and try to disprove the things you believe. Does that make more sense?

Please. We all understand this.

What causes skepticism is severalfold. The skepticism is tied to believing the "scientists" are not employing the scientific method, because of funding and other concerns.

If scientists were not people, machines with perfect power of observation and complete neutrality, people would have less skepticism. But scientists are not perfect, have ulterior motives and make mistakes. Yes there are many motivated for knowledge alone and some are very scrupulous, but the opinions of others does color a person's perspective, even subconsciously.

[Topper]

Ha. I knew that would generate a response. Sorry, but I have seen enough whoppers posted by this woman that I know she was zero regard for the truth and a detailed response is not worth the effort. There are multiple polls like the one in question, and there are many other ways to gauge consensus. In any case, I am growing weary of playing whack-a-mole. One minute you all are arguing that the climate scientists are all engaged a massive coordinated conspiracy to fudge data and claim a problem when there isn't one in order to secure funding, and the next minute you are arguing that there really isn't a consensus and in fact most scientists don't really believe in AGW (whoops! there goes the funding). If you anti-science folks would just coordinate a little to get your stories straight, it would at least lend a veneer of rational thought to your arguments.

I have never argued all scientists are engaged in a massive overt conspiracy.

And I don't follow the developments as closely as you. I remember the time when you mentioned the stochastic computations were so complex that the computers lacked the capacity to make adequate predictions.

Indy's example of extrapolation is what appears to be happening on the outside to outsiders looking inside.

What appears to be happening is that scientists will simplify and exaggerate for purposes of making the case as extreme as possible in order to secure more grant money. There is very little grant money in evaluating and determining the warming trend is (a) natural and (b) nothing can be done to alter the course. I don't see that as a conspiracy but human nature. A human will most likely perceive facts and circumstances in a manner most beneficial to himself.

[The_Douger]

Please. We all understand this.

What causes skepticism is severalfold. The skepticism is tied to believing the "scientists" are not employing the scientific method, because of funding and other concerns.

If scientists were not people, machines with perfect power of observation and complete neutrality, people would have less skepticism. But scientists are not perfect, have ulterior motives and make mistakes. Yes there are many motivated for knowledge alone and some are very scrupulous, but the opinions of others does color a person's perspective, even subconsciously.

Isn't that kind of the point of peer review?

[Nakoma]

California being underwater in 15 years was not the scientific consensus (Al Gore is a nut - ignore him). For the last 10 years or so, world temps have flattened somewhat due to an el nino event. These happen (and will continue to happen) periodically, but they are short-term anomalies that unfortunately don't have a long-term impact on GW. There will alway be some level of noise in the short term, but it is the long-term changes that matter. Climate models are not expected to accurately track short-term noise. From what I understand, the impact of AGW will occur gradually over several centuries.

So short-term climate models aren't reliable, but long-term climate models are reliable? Have any long-term climate models proven reliable (because enough time has passed) that we should trust they are accurate?

[Clark Addison]

So short-term climate models aren't reliable, but long-term climate models are reliable? Have any long-term climate models proven reliable (because enough time has passed) that we should trust they are accurate?

I am no climate expert, but from a modeling perspective, long-term models are usually more accurate than short-term models, since time irons out random fluctuations and variations.

[Topper]

Bit if a group expects view matters in a particular light the groupthink will cause each to validate what they expect. Remember how the plate tectonics guy was first excoriated?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Uncle Ted]

Who created that image? Wouldn't sea levels have to rise by a couple hundred feet (not 4) to cover florida? The elevation of Orlando is 95 feet or so.

That is an image of what it would look like if all the ice melted and the oceans increased by 200 feet.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have never argued all scientists are engaged in a massive overt conspiracy.

And I don't follow the developments as closely as you. I remember the time when you mentioned the stochastic computations were so complex that the computers lacked the capacity to make adequate predictions.

Indy's example of extrapolation is what appears to be happening on the outside to outsiders looking inside.

What appears to be happening is that scientists will simplify and exaggerate for purposes of making the case as extreme as possible in order to secure more grant money. There is very little grant money in evaluating and determining the warming trend is (a) natural and (b) nothing can be done to alter the course. I don't see that as a conspiracy but human nature. A human will most likely perceive facts and circumstances in a manner most beneficial to himself.

So it is not a conspiracy, but all the scientists are fudging their data for money?

And you don't follow the developments, but you happen to know how much grant money there is and how it is doled out?



And you are misstating what I said about stochastic computations.

[Indy Coug]

I got a sunburn today. A little sweaty too, but not too bad.

[Omaha 680]

That is an image of what it would look like if all the ice melted and the oceans increased by 200 feet.

So that's the worst it could possibly get? Geez I was expecting more. I guess I'm a casualty of the Al Gore hype machine.

Yes, I realize a 200 foot sea level rise would be much more catastrophic for many other nations and would erase some entirely.

[Topper]

Then correct us JL wirh your impatient hateful attitude. We lawyers are much more tolerant of your imbecilic comments on law than you on the comments of non scientists.

Scientists express themselves horribly to the rest of us. Su is correct a lawyer should be your speaker.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

So short-term climate models aren't reliable, but long-term climate models are reliable? Have any long-term climate models proven reliable (because enough time has passed) that we should trust they are accurate?

Yeah, it is kind of confusing. Let me try to explain with the aid of a graph. Here is one I just grabbed from a google search (see below). Each of the colored plots represents a simulation performed with a different set of assumptions. For example, one of the inputs to the models is the amount of CO2 to be generated in the future. You have to make an educated guess so you pick a value and plug it into the model. You also assume a random distribution of el nino events, volcanic eruptions, and things like that. You can't possibly predict when each of these will occur, but you know for sure that they will occasionally happen so you randomly generate them in a sequence that mimics the frequency that they occur in the past. This is sometimes called a Markhov Chain Monte Carlo analysis. Then you throw it into the computer and make a model run. The model takes your inputs and applies a set of complex equations describing the basic physics involved and you end up with a noisy graph of temp vs time like one of those shown below. But there is nothing sacred about this particular run. You had to make some assumptions and generate some random numbers to set it up. So what you do is repeat this process hundreds or maybe thousands of times. In each case you make a different set of assumptions and generate a different sequence of random events. If you do this correctly, none of your scenarios would be expected to exactly match the future, but each of your simulations is equally probable. Then you look at this sequence of model runs and you can begin to make predictions about the future. You do NOT make exact predictions, such as what the temp will be on June 21, 2099. Rather, you would say "75% of our models say that the temp on June 21, 2099 will be XX degrees or greater." You can also begin to observe general trends, such as the gradual rise in temp shown by the black line representing the mean of all of the model simulations.

Does that make sense?

By the way, once you understand how this works, you can see why it is completely deceptive when someone (CMBF for example) claims that models are wrong 98% of the time. Sure, if you are looking at an exact prediction at a certain date, these models with varying assumptions and different sequences of random events show a range of values at a particular point in time. They are simply not designed to make specific predictions in the first place. But they can be very useful in determining what range of scenarios are likely in the future.