Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:

The claim of the scientific community is that science proceeds by an open process that allows anybody to reproduce the results.

That claim is sometimes true, sometimes completely false (lets call it propaganda). It some areas, with todays high competition, data is hidden in as much as possible, and many scientific journals accept it that way.

This is true, e.g., in conservation genetics where most people try to maintain their data as close as possible even after publication (so that they can milk it in as much as possible). I am writing this now from a conservation genetics lab, so I know what I am talking about.


And the problem here is that the global warming science has been tested and reproduced to a great degree (not as strongly as something like relativity, but close) and there is no serious dissent about the vast majority of the claims. The problem is entirely on the side of the skeptics, who are openly funded and supported by people and organizations that have an obvious financial or political interest in the subject.

You cannot test predictions in any reliable way. By definition predictions can only be tested in the future. Yes, you can fit the past in your models, but that is no guarantee that the behavior in the future will hold.

Isn't it funny that the same guys that cannot do reliable weather forecasts for TOMORROW, suggest that they can predict the climate in 10 years? The argument is that weather predictions and climate predictions are qualitatively different so that the former are more reliable in some way. Bullshit: climate prediction models hold precisely because they cannot be put to test in such a blunt way as weather models. It becomes a rethorical argument, more than anything else.

For the economists here, think quantitative finance and the ability of "smart" Wall Street people to predict the housing/mortage crisis. The underlying mentality is the same: lets use some computational models to predict the future. The result is, I argue, also the same... utter bs.

by t-------------- on Fri Aug 1st, 2008 at 01:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't it funny that the same guys that cannot do reliable weather forecasts for TOMORROW, suggest that they can predict the climate in 10 years? The argument is that weather predictions and climate predictions are qualitatively different so that the former are more reliable in some way. Bullshit: climate prediction models hold precisely because they cannot be put to test in such a blunt way as weather models. It becomes a rethorical argument, more than anything else.

Isn't it funny that the same guys who can't compute reliable space-time coordinates for atoms in gasses nonetheless claim to be able to predict their macroscopic properties? The argument is that prediction of the macroscopic and microscopic properties of gasses are qualitatively different so that the the former are more reliable in some way. Bullshit: Gas-phase thermodynamic models hold precisely because they cannot be put to test in such a blunt way as microscopic models of the behaviours of gasses. It becomes a rhetorical argument, more than anything else.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 1st, 2008 at 07:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Has anyone ever claimed to be able to predict the weather forecast for August the 8th, 2058?

Thought so.

So, it's a meaningless comparison indeed. The climate for tomorrow can of course be predicted with ASTONISHING accuracy (in fact, even the weather forecast for tomorrow is pretty good), so it's no argument against the possibility to predict it in the more distant future.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Aug 7th, 2008 at 09:43:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series