There Are No Responses Yet. »

1. Comment by Carl Clegg on 11 December 2008:

   Junk science driven political agendas results in alarmism. Richard Lindzen wrote in the WSJ: “…there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis”

2. Comment by Sean Hastings on 14 December 2008:

   There are a couple of problems with the way climate models are used to “scientifically prove” the “cause” of climate change.1.) Even if we knew that some existing climate model could, in fact, accurately predict the climate over many many years, and we found that removing human input from the model, that temperatures would indeed be colder in the future, this does not justify the claim that “global warming is caused by humans.” Or rather, if you grant that this is proof of cause, then it would be equally valid to remove the effects of methane produced by swamps, find that this also produces colder temperatures, and conclude that “global warming is caused by wetlands.” The separate question about what (if anything) should be done about global warming should then also include the possibilities of drying up wetlands, encouraging more volcanic eruptions, increasing the albedo of the planet through greater desertification, or reducing restrictions on human sulfur dioxide output – all of which would cool temperatures according to existing climate models.2.) Drawing conclusions about what actually will happen to the climate, based on climate models, is not science as defined by the scientific method. The scientific method requires us to form a hypothesis, set up a testable experiment, observe the results, draw conclusions, and make all of the above public so that others can confirm that the experiment is repeatable.In the case of long term models of the behavior of a planetary climate, each model can be taken as a new hypothesis. The only possible experiment to confirm a model/hypothesis would be watching the climate and seeing if it conforms to the model’s predictions. Previous climate data is the source of such models, and thus can not also be taken as confirmation of those same models. Only future climate behavior can scientifically confirm any model. If your hypothesis makes 100 year long predictions, the experiment will take 100 years to run once, and another 100 years for others to repeat.Until that happens, it can not rise to the level of being called science.Since waiting around for 200 years to see if a given long range climate model is reliable is not practical in terms of Human lifespans, instead of science, we get people arguing about which hypothesis they think is more likely to be true, and who’s credentials make them more likely to be able to predict the results of an experiment that would take far to long to actually run.Even if the people creating these models and arguing about them are “scientists” as defined by having a degree from a university in some science, what they are doing in this field is not science by its most basic and important definition.

Post a Response