What you are saying is not to reject AGW because it is invalid (which you haven’t demonstrated) but to declare it invalid because the consequences of it being valid are so dire? What if fixing the problem causes 1 million to die, but ignoring it causes 100 million to die? AGW is correct or not. If it is not correct, then we don’t have to do anything. If it is correct, we need to find the best solution. And, since in many cases the faster a response is made the less impact there will be, fighting to delay a solution might mean more will die. Is this where you want to be?
And if you require a really close fit. Take a look at the “fit” that jshore is trumpeting between Hansen scenario B and the historical temperature data.
Not exactly. It depends on what is really at risk. If the model is at risk but not the hypothesis, then you aren’t really testing the hypothesis.
It’s like Mike Nifong discovering that there’s no DNA match and concluding that DNA doesn’t mean anything.
No I’m declaring in todays political climate it is impossible to trust the conclusions of any AGW study because it involves too many people and no one can assure that the science is not corrupted by politics, and the probability of that corruption is unacceptable high as the stakes involved are too large.
The way you state it with no other info you would have to fix the problem and condemn the 1 million to death. but if fixing the problem means 1 million will die, and not fixing it might mean that 100 million will die worse case assuming that all the science is correct and people who stand to make money and gain power don’t follow those instincts and act altruistically, sorry that’s just not good enough to execute 1 million people by mass starvation.
I’m not so willing to pull the trigger on 1 million people, condemned to death for potentially no reason, around the world on something that seems to be so easy to be politically manipulated.
Sure, for any particular model. People can certainly write crappy models, after all.
Now, if no models can be found that both make physical sense and support the hypothesis, then you need to think about throwing out the hypothesis. If models predict things not directly related to AGW, but fail to support AGW, then you might have falsified the hypothesis. I suppose of CO2 levels continue to rise, everything else is stable, and the icecaps come back, that would falsify it also.
Trouble is you can always find models that make physical sense and support the hypothesis.
So…only climate scientists can understand climate science, but because no one except climate scientists are climate scientists, anyone else–regardless of how proficient they are in related fields–and particularly the general populace are wrong about anything that has to do with climate science since they’re in no position to know. And that’s particularly true if they seem to agree with climate scientists!
Lovely bit of logic there.
Well, I would say that you are pretty much correct. If I was coming in here and arguing that the conclusion of the vast majority of climate scientists is incorrect and that the views of scientific organizations like the AAAS and NAS are incorrect, you would do well to question how I am in a better position than them to judge the validity of the AGW hypothesis and to not place much weight on my opinion.
As it is, you are the one who is doing this. I am merely explicating some of the research in the field as I understand it…and how it has led to the scientific consensus that has emerged. Because I have spent years reading expositions of climate science and even quite a lot of the peer-reviewed literature in the field (and because I do computational modeling in the physical sciences), I do think I am somewhat qualified to explain these things. I don’t really think I am qualified to have too much of an independent opinion…particularly, an opinion that seems to contradict the general belief of those who are actually actively conducting research in the field. (I, of course, have the right to express such an opinion but I would think it strange if others gave it very much weight.)
Might I gently suggest that no amount of evidence we put forth will be acceptable to you in any climate, political or otherwise, due to your tendency to literally see demons in most ideas you disagree with. It would have been more honest if you had stated outright that you hold the opinions you have put forth and that this thread was not open to debate.
Exactly how would one go about this - and remember, the model has to be testable on data not involved in its creation. The model would have to stand up to peer review also.
ETA: Could we use the same principle to create a stock market model? I’m seeing my retirement get much rosier. 
That’s flummery. First of all, you are saying that a conspiracy works better with more people, which is asinine. Second, many scientists studying this are working in countries where there is no political opposition to it, and thus would not have a political bias one way or another. Third, this research began before there was any politics involved in it, and in fact both liberals and evangelicals are properly worried about it. Fourth, show me the slightest shred of evidence that the consensus is tainted by politics. The stakes are very high, and in no way should the proper actions, whatever they are, be delayed by paranoid delusions of scientific conspiracy.
In a post near the beginning of this thread I defended the OP as perhaps having a point. I apologize. The original post has not a shred of content or intelligence in it.
It’s not my logic. In my opinion, many people who are not climate scientists are in a position to evaluate AGW.
It looks to me like you are doing more than that. For example, you expressed the following opinion without any citations:
Pielke Jr. is apparently a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
Sure, you just pick a bunch of variables, base your model on them and tweak the model until you get a fit. People have done this with the stock market using such things as the conference of the superbowl winner (AFC or NFC) and the prevailing lengths of women’s skirts. If you think that it’s transparently crazy to use football results or skirt lenghts, you just pick variables that are closer to the market, such as rates of change of certain market indices, exchange rates, sales of odd lots, or whatever. If you throw in time lags and other things, you can always find enough of a pattern to get a fit. If you create 100 models this way, based on one set of historical data, chances are a few will fit the more recent data.
And, again, you are talking about a completely different kind of modeling. Climate models are physically-based models of the climate system. They are not phenomenological models that try to fit to historical temperature trends or anything like that.
My cite is the previously-cited link to the RealClimate piece comparing Hansen’s predictions to what came to pass. It is hard to never state any sort of opinion whatsoever. However, you are just avoiding the fact that you are going around here stating opinions that are clearly at odds with the scientific community (and you haven’t told us anything about your credentials, by the way).
What are you expecting exactly? If you honestly expect the climate model to reproduce every jiggle then you are very naive. Those jiggles show a sensitivity to the initial conditions whereas the general trend line under a forcing such as increasing greenhouse gases is robust (at least assuming the period of observation is long enough). Besides which, one of the most dramatic jiggles was due to a volcanic eruption and, while Hansen did assume one major volcanic eruption, he wasn’t psychic enough to get the year right.
Not really. Anyone who applies the scientific method to climate studies is automatically a “climate scientist.”
There’s not anything anyone can do differently from what they do. You come up with a hypothesis, determine a method for testing that, and then submit the results to a group of people who look to see if your method has any potential flaws that might make it invalid.
And ultimately that’s all that anyone can do. If you want to check how te IPCC came to their conclusion, what tests were done and what the specific methods and math were for checking all of that, you entirely can. It’s public and there to read. But arguing against their findings without looking for flaws in their methodology, or insisting that they’re wrong and we have to start the whole thing of figuring out how Earth’s climate works from square one is just silly.
To give a little history of science: If you look back at theories which have been disproven, this has never happened because people got the wrong results from their tests for a period of time. Tests work against reality, so whatever result there is at the end of the test is by definition “reality” and true. Theories get disproven when the data you get ceases to match up with what the theory says should happen. So now the theory of AGW is the only current theory which hasn’t had anyone be able to find data (reality) that goes against its predictions. If you come up with some second theory that also matches all the known data, then be my guest. But from everything I can tell, every alternative theory for what is happening and why it would be happening is pretty easily falsifiable. A few minutes of Internet browsing can find data which discounts alternate theories. And the important thing is that “alternate theories” are not data. Just because other theories exist, that has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood that AGW is real, just like the existence of the theory of divine creation isn’t any sort of evidence against the theory of Evolution.
So find me data that flies in the face of AGW and I’ll prick up my ears and listen. But saying that other theories could be the real ones–that’s not an argument.
Do you agree that one must make many judgments in constructing a climate model? How large is the universe of climate models? I would guess that there are millions, if not billions, of possible models.
Realistically, you only need a model of the Earth, Moon, and Sun. The only question is how detailed you make it all.
If you actually care about climate modelling, the Wikipedia has a nice page:
The climate scientist, Hans von Storch, also has a nice page on the methods and level of reliability of climate models if you read through some of his whitepapers.