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 ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series