As a follow up to my previous post on this thread, I saw this article today, a lot of which, rang true to me:
Climate models are abstract models, except they are made up of a multiple of models all interacting with each other. Those interactions bear little resemblance to reality.
In summary,
We have virtually no data.
This is true even for fundamental variables like temperature, precipitation atmospheric pressure, and atmospheric water content.
Data is replaced by symbols that eliminate most of the properties of the natural variable.
In many cases the “data” is generated in another model and used as ‘real’ data in the larger model.
The models are essentially static representations of average conditions. The one thing we know with certainty is that the Earth’s atmospheric system is dynamic, changing daily, seasonally and constantly over the course of time.
The models consistently fail the standard test of scientific understanding and accuracy by producing inaccurate predictions.
Nice one @stickywhitedovepiss - my view, for what it’s worth (which ain’t a lot) is that despite the fact man is having an impact on climate there’s a lot more we need to understand but self-interested parties believe only what fits their personal / financial / political view…
In the interests of balance. There’s quite a bit of stuff on this bio of the article author giving background on his potential motives that is certainly questionable, no doubt there is some stuff in the original article outside of my realm of experience that is qurstionable as well. However the stuff he says that IS in the realm of my experience rings pretty true.
The hard-hitting conference was organized by longtime liberty movement leader G. Edward Griffin and his pro-liberty organization, Freedom Force International. Under the banner of “Global Warming: an Inconvenient Lie,” Freedom Force’s 3rd Congress ran from December 2 to December 4 at The Buttes resort in Phoenix, Arizona. Attendees and speakers came from across America, Canada, and Europe to learn and participate in what organizers described as a “gathering of the world’s top experts on this subject who completely demolished the myth of anthropogenic (man-caused) global-warming.”
And I suppose every anthropogenic climate change proponent does all their research at their own expense entirely for noble, altruistic reasons. Most parties on both sides of this argument are paid up in one way or another.
Scepticism is not a quality that should be derided.
Think I said on some other thread or even this one: Fingers in your ears, eyes closed, singing la,la,la,la,la
Buy in to what you believe, bet most of it ain’t based on fact but on what your gut tells you…like Brexit - even if you come up with well reasoned arguments that you’ll argue are right to the death, but may well be seen as mental in a few years time. Just saying…
Seems this thread is winkling out some of the deniers.
Interesting that you call that link an ‘article’. It is actually more of an opinion piece based on rather spurious partial and deliberate misinterpretations of the data. There are plenty of people who, when they’ve boothered with WUWT, have debunked it.
Here’s one I like. This guy’s blog is called “…and then there was physics”
The majority of them are academics. Their research is paid for by various sources but in the UK, this will be mainly by the Research Councils (primarily the NERC and the EPSRC). These councils channel government and other funds into universities and other academic institutions and act as a buffer between political and vested interests and academic rigour and independence. The reseach councils demand the very highest levels of rigour and probity and applications are double blind peer-reviewed, making grants very difficult to come by (believe me, I know).
The research resulting from the grants then gets published usually in a couple of forms: 1) as a report of the overall research when it is concluded; 2) in the form of a series of (again) double blind peer-reviewed ARTICLES (these are real articles, btw) - which are sometimes called papers - published in academic journals. It is the latter which are the most important, reporting on findings and outlining in detail the methodology employed, the shortcomings of the research, the link to other pieces of research etc. All research should be transparent and free from interference and, nearly always, it is. Scientists are free to report anything they like - but it will only get published if the methodolgy is sound and robust.
I would say the main area for criticism of scientists is the danger that they seek to promote their own careers and egos above the science. This does happen but in something like climate science it is rare as nearly all the research is undertaken by large collaborative research groups - normally acrioss several departments and disciplines and generally between groups from several universities.
Skepticism is fine, as long as it too is based on robust science. That means not cherry picking bits and pieces and then dressing them up as science to support a particular agenda (as Tim Ball does) but carrying out independent research of one’s own to test hypotheses. That is how science works.
