[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
I love it when global warming critics trot out the old “But Scientists said, back in the seventies, that we were heading into an ice age! If they were wrong then, then surely they’re wrong now!”
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it’s not as if the price of core memory has come down, or POES data superceded since that era. 
Those scientists back in the 70’s were the first group which had a chance to use real data to model earth’s climate. The data sucked, so did their computers. Of course their conclusions were a little iffy.
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
The “panel composed of 2000 scientists” was carefully selected and orchestrated to give the appearance of consensus.
[/quote]
How do you know that?
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
Note that at one point, Lindzen himself was one of the “2000 scientists.”
[/quote]
What makes you so sure he is right and the other 1,999 are wrong?
[QUOTE=Squink]
Does anyone remember the title of the August 6 pdb?
[/QUOTE]
What’s that got to do with this?
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
Same thing. Plus power and prestige.
How often does an ad hoc committee conclude that the problem it has been charged to investigate is not much of a problem and therefore the committee should be disbanded?
How often does an ad hoc committee conclude that the problem it has been charged to investigate is serious and urgent and further investigation is necessary?
[/QUOTE]
Look, these are all credentialed scientists. IOW, they have jobs. I don’t know what they got paid for their work on the IPCC, but I’m sure they don’t need the IPCC to continue in existence.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What’s that got to do with this?
[/QUOTE]
In a few years they’ll be telling us that ‘no one could have imagined’ that global warming was a cause for real concern. Reactionaries are like that.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
That is, of course, quite thoroughly documented in the IPCC report.
[/QUOTE]
Link please.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Perhaps, but they are not always wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Climatology is not meteorology; climatologists don’t (and meteorologists can’t) make specific predictions about local weather patterns years, or even months, into the future. This isn’t just a lack of knowledge, this is a property of a complex, nonlinear system. You don’t seem to understand enough on this topic to even make an intelligible arguement.
[/QUOTE]
No, you’re the one who doesn’t understand. I’m not claiming that climatologists should be able to make specific predictions.
I simply was giving an example of the sort of evidence that would convince me.
While it’s possible that global warming proponents are correct but unable to make specific, unusual, testable predictions, they are now in the same category as psychics and other frauds who refuse to be put to the test.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Look, these are all credentialed scientists. IOW, they have jobs. I don’t know what they got paid for their work on the IPCC, but I’m sure they don’t need the IPCC to continue in existence.
[/QUOTE]
Funny then, how ad hoc committees inevitably recommend that their existence continue.
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
Link please.
[/QUOTE]
Are you joking? It’s in the OP.
There is a very large amount of data and analysis demonstrating AGW.
It’s amusing to see it implied that the scientists serving on the IPCC want to lengthen that process beyond what might be useful. Actually, one of the concerns that has been voiced about the future of the IPCC process is whether it can continue to attract the best scientists, particularly to serve in the time-consuming positions of lead authors, precisely because it requires so much work from scientists for so little reward. Sure, you get to travel to some different places…but active research scientists usually aren’t looking for more work travel. Most of them would actually like to be at home more with their families!
In fact, climate scientists work very hard to come up with tests for their predictions and models. The only point that was being made is that these test have to be reasonable. As scientists, they understand the limits of their ability to predict…and they understand, for example, that the atmosphere is chaotic so that weather prediction beyond a few weeks is not possible. It is only possible to make predictions about suitably averaged quantities, i.e., climate.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Are you joking? It’s in the OP.
[/quote]
The link in the original post is to a Yahoo news article.
If you study things a little, you may learn to be a little cautious before making scientific proclamations based on articles in the popular press.
On the subject of predictions:
See the figure at the bottom of this piece, a prediction made by James Hansen way back in 1988 (using a pretty crude model by today’ standards) that has turned out quite well…well enough that the contrarians have had to deceive in order to make it look like the prediction did not turn out too well.
And, here is an example of a test to see if the climate models are correctly predicting the change in water vapor in the upper atmosphere, which is important because the “water vapor feedback” is an important component determining the sensitivity of the climate to changes in CO2 concentration.
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
The link in the original post is to a Yahoo news article.
If you study things a little, you may learn to be a little cautious before making scientific proclamations based on articles in the popular press.
[/QUOTE]
Here is the link to the actual IPCC document [PDF file].
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
The link in the original post is to a Yahoo news article.
If you study things a little, you may learn to be a little cautious before making scientific proclamations based on articles in the popular press.
[/QUOTE]
But the link was in my Post #29: It’s considered bad board manners to reply before reading the entire thread.
And, in that Yahoo News article, there is a link to the report at the bottom.
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
No, you’re the one who doesn’t understand. I’m not claiming that climatologists should be able to make specific predictions.
I simply was giving an example of the sort of evidence that would convince me.
While it’s possible that global warming proponents are correct but unable to make specific, unusual, testable predictions, they are now in the same category as psychics and other frauds who refuse to be put to the test.
[/QUOTE]
So, just so I understand you, the only evidence you would accept is that which you acknowledge to be epistemically unobtainable. This is a fascinating demonstration of the perfection fallacy, and neatly allows you to avoid ever having to weight any real evidence.
Climatologists do make predictions of both extrapolation to the past (outside the data set for a specific model) and future regarding the general state of the climate system, and even regional behavior. They cannot, however, make predictions of specific, localized behavior. This isn’t a failure of the model in the sense that it isn’t sufficiently accurate or refined, but rather a property of complex, perturbative systems in which small changes in input parameters can result in behavior that falls within predicted guidelines but is not capable of being modeled deterministically. Predicting a set number of hurricanes for a given year in the future is like predicting how many marbles thrown up in the air will land within a prescribed circle. We can make a very good estimate based upon how the marbles are distributed, how high they are thrown, their material properties, and the density/likelyhood of interaction, but we can’t state with certainty a specific number or which ones.
Stranger
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
It’s considered bad board manners to reply before reading the entire thread.
[/QUOTE]
Is it considered bad board manners to claim that a particular post contains a certain link when it doesn’t?
Anyway, the link you gave me goes to a “Summary for Policymakers.”
colibri referred to an “IPCC report” which supposedly contains thorough documentation.
I’m still waiting for a link to the “IPCC report” that colibri apparently claims to have read.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
So, just so I understand you, the only evidence you would accept is that which you acknowledge to be epistemically unobtainable.
[/quote]
Nope. I gave two examples of evidence that would change my mind, I never claimed that either one (or both) were the only thing. And I never acknowledged that anything is “epistemically unobtainable.”
Is your understanding really so poor that you can’t understand the point I made? Or are you intentionally misrepresenting my words? Either way, it undercuts any argument you make.
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
Is it considered bad board manners to claim that a particular post contains a certain link when it doesn’t?
Anyway, the link you gave me goes to a “Summary for Policymakers.”
colibri referred to an “IPCC report” which supposedly contains thorough documentation.
I’m still waiting for a link to the “IPCC report” that colibri apparently claims to have read.
[/QUOTE]
You are kidding, right? It’s been pointed out to you about three times that the link to the IPCC report is in the article at the very bottom. He also posted a direct link to the report.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
You are kidding, right?
[/quote]
No.
The link at the bottom of the article goes to a “Summary for Policymakers.”
Did you even bother to click the link and actually read before posting?
I’m still waiting for a link to the actual report that colibri apparently claims to have read.
Well, the summary for policymakers is often referred to itself as a report, even though it is itself also the summary of a much larger report. The full IPCC Fourth Assessment Report will not be released until May…although you can read the previous Third Assessment Report (from 2001) online at the IPCC website.