You are the one who brought the demons into this, well Satan brought them, but that’s besides the issue. Though I suspect there is some demonic influence, I really don’t see it as a major spiritual warfare issue, at this time more of conflicts of the flesh.
No I did not, I claimed that since this is really measurements so close to the noise level that a few well placed points of corrupted data could appear to cause trends that do not exist. Past weather data is one such thing that may be in just a few hands and may be easially corruptible by very few people.
Politics was involved at least from the time AGW was called global cooling. And I’m sure there are liberals and evangelicals (are they suppose to be opposites? )that are not worried about it also.
True…
but try looking at it this way; if the democrats were supporting this devious money-making global-warming plot to make money, is it believable that the republicans would not be getting in on the action too?
One piece claims, essentially, that you can just sum up emissions of greenhouse gases in terms of net forcings and, for purposes of global warming, ignore the differences among those gases. The other piece, written by an environmental scientist, questions that claim.
By your own standard, I don’t see how you are qualified to assure that one view is right and the other view is wrong.
My degree is in journalism, not environmental science or climatology. I have to trust that those guys know what they’re talking about. It’s possible, I suppose, that they’re interpreting the data incorrectly, since scientists have never recorded a set of data just like this and they’re pushing back some scientific frontiers. But I’d think any errors would only be of degree or magnitude, not whether it’s actually happening. And some margin of error has to be acceptable. So it’s not really a matter of faith but of trust – different things, really.
What exactly do you mean by applying the scientific method?
It’s funny you should mention the IPCC reports, since much of my obvious skepticism about AGW was engendered by the infamous hockey stick graph as published by the IPCC in 2001.
Gee. That’s called doing a regression, and is basically what I meant by fitting a curve to the data. I suspect the big problem will be when the new data moves into a range not found in the old data. The model created from a regression would fail then, while models based on a physical understanding of the situation would do much better. I rather suspect that people have run regressions on the market for decades without getting anywhere. I don’t think a simplistic regression would work for the climate either.
“It involves too many people.” I rather suspect the measurement data is both published and freely available (right, experts?) and was no doubt published with the original papers. Are you aware of the many statistical techniques to find a signal in noisy data? Changing one or two measurements is not going to make results significant. Plus, you continue to insult the integrity of climate scientists without a shred of proof. The signal is not being picked up from one measurement, but found around the world. This is GD - put up some evidence or stop this buffoonery.
Maybe those without a degree in it but who have taken the time to understand the theory and practice of the field. I’m not qualified, I know that. I see people with good qualifications in other fields make idiotic statements about mine from lack of understanding, and I for one don’t want to return the favor.
I think it depends on the opinion. Here’s an example: Much has been made lately about apparent warming on other planets besides Earth. Suppose that there’s a cooling trend on the Earth for the next 7 years, followed by 4 years of warming and suppose that 3 other planets besides Earth are observed to have the same trends: 7 years of cooling followed by 4 years of warming.
In that situation, just about any person with a modicum of common sense will conclude that some extraterriastrial entity is responsible for those trends.
Ok I can see where you got that, what I meant is that it is so diverse, so many people working on different aspects of the project, interdependently, that a corruption of one or two of the smaller, easy to corrupt, parts could throw off the results.
Also isn’t most of the historical data on weather around the world controlled by the US Government, NOAA, NASA?
Well, a regression gives the coefficients of an equation which you can kind of simulate, so true. But I’ve written many, many simulators over the past 30 years, and they typically include some mapping to physical reality.
if some data points are wildly inconsistent, they’ll stick out. People will assume measurement error before fraud, but no one assumes any measurement is correct. That’s true for most things. Before Piltdown man was exposed as a fraud, it was pretty much ignored, for being so out of line with human fossils that had been discovered later.
I think in many cases scientists run the experiments and collect the measurements using platforms for NASA. I know of one satellite experiment (nothing to do with climate) where the researchers at a university got the data directly from the satellite, through a ground station, of course. So, unless you posit a conspiracy that intercepts and modifies the raw data, I don’t think in most cases the government controls the data. Anyhow, it’s not like this government is such a fan of AGW. You’d have to assume that the political managers are so clueless that they’d never notice this conspiracy. On second thought, that sounds pretty reasonable.
It sounds to me that you think that multivariate statistical analysis = simulation. It doesn’t.
I know nothing about the AGW models used today (though I have played with the Lorentz equations, but these were incredibly simplistic) but I do a lot of modeling in my job. Typically these types of simulations are based upon the physical equations that govern the system. For example, I have a model of a holographic data storage system that is based mainly on Maxwell’s equations and conservation of momentum. The tweaking I do to the model to get it to agree with experiment (ie, training the model) is changing of the free parameters, for example the degree of coherence, the quantum efficiency or noise characteristics of the sensor, the amount of coherent scatter, or diffustion rates and MTF of the holographic media. I assume the AGW models are similar, using conservation of energy, diffusion rates, and the laws of thermodynamics. Is this right? JShore? Intention?
What equations whould you base a simulation of the stock market on? Sure there are models out here for price elaticity and demand response to certain variables, but the stock market is a highly complex (maybe even chaotic) system and if someone could actually model it accurately, they would be worth billions!
Oh, for … seriously? You don’t know the difference?
Okay, let’s reach for ol’ Merriam-Webster:
**trust ** – 1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something b : one in which confidence is placed
**faith ** – 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
Even simpler: The first is conditional; the second is unconditional.
Then obviously you’ve not taken the five minutes it takes to find out what the “infamous” issue was, nor how science works.
The issue was that one guy had one problem with his math that got a false result. This was quickly spotted (remember, all this stuff is public for checking.) When corrections were made, everyone still got a hockey puck even the people who were the most vociferously against AGW. And overall it didn’t matter, because the one graph was only one of several, since the way science works is by using different methods to verify and reverify that different methods (e.g. using ice bubble data versus using tree ring data) all come to the same result. So there were several other graphs that didn’t have the error and had the same result–and as said, even when corrected, the one graph was still a hockeypuck.
I like this breakdown though I’m not sure I agree with it, but note your definition of faith can mean complete trust, so they can be used interchangable.
I would contend for one that believes in a living God that interacts with us, not a dead ‘god’ that is written about, they would have complete trust in whatever God tells them.
