Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

What I'd like to know is why Poptech is so vociferous in his dismissal of AGW. I mean, what difference is it to him personally if scientists accept or reject AGW?
 
Corsair 115 said:
What I'd like to know is why Poptech is so vociferous in his dismissal of AGW. I mean, what difference is it to him personally if scientists accept or reject AGW?
Click to expand...

Well, let's not personalize it, as we have been warned not to do so.

However, in general, these people think that all AGW is due to a Vast Secret Conspiracy to strip riches from those who so thoroughly deserve it, like oil companies, and Saudi Arabia, and to put it in the hands of Global Socialism, while condemning all of us to live lives like paupers in small, heavily insulated homes, riding electric public transit, and denying us our God-Given RIGHT to tear up the tundra in snowmobiles or to become hazards to navigation on waverunners.
 
Poptech said:
Weather forecasting...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Weather models are trying to reproduce a specific realization of a chaotic system, climate models reproduce the attractor and variability. The tasks are completely different.
 
BenBurch said:
However, in general, these people think that all AGW is due to a Vast Secret Conspiracy to strip riches from those who so thoroughly deserve it, like oil companies, and Saudi Arabia, and to put it in the hands of Global Socialism, while condemning all of us to live lives like paupers in small, heavily insulated homes, riding electric public transit, and denying us our God-Given RIGHT to tear up the tundra in snowmobiles or to become hazards to navigation on waverunners.
Click to expand...
Um no. I have repeated that there is no conspiracy. Your constant attempts to smear are growing old. The scientific opinion is varied as to the cause and extent of climate change. The alarmist rhetoric your peddle is in the minority. Then of course there is the insane belief system of "environmentalists" which is no better than religious extremists.

But I do cherish my right to personal liberty as opposed to your fascist ideals. My question is why you support collectivism. Either you don't understand economics or have an inability to detach your emotions from it.

Ben, again Socialism or Capitalism? Lets put this to rest, don't be afraid.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Wrong. Ever heard of a little thing called probability? Nothing in any kind of experimental or empirical science is 100% - that is the very nature of uncertainty.
Click to expand...
Virtual reality propability only applies to the virtual world. The one thing you can be sure of is everything happened 100% in the empirical experiment whether you understood it or analyzed it correct or not.

MattusMaximus said:
And you can get a lot of relevant data out of a model even without 100% accuracy - we do this all the time in all realms of science. In fact, we use models of all kinds to provide a meaningful replica and/or explanation of reality - in most, if not all, cases our models are never 100% accurate reflections of what they're trying to describe, because if they were 100% accurate then we wouldn't be using a model, we'd be using reality. The entire reason we use a model in the first place is to attempt to describe & explain a reality which is, for lack of a better phrase, too big and/or complex for us to otherwise grasp.
Click to expand...
You think you do. What you wind up getting more often is the wrong assumption. Of course you would use a model that was 100% accurate because you can run theoretical experiments you could not in the real world. Creating a 3D model to visually represent data can be useful, creating one to explain reality cannot unless it is identical to reality.

MattusMaximus said:
You seem to be setting the bar for computer-generated climate modeling unrealistically high in an effort to discredit all of climate change science. That, and you are displaying an appalling ignorance of modeling in science.
Click to expand...
Reality is not unrealistic only computer climate models.
 
Poptech, if you are so convinced there is legitimate dissent in the scientific community then you should have no trouble producing some recent papers to support your opinion. Why don’t you give us 5 papers published in high impact journals in the last 6 months along with a description of how you think they support your belief.
 
Wow poptech you sure have a lot to learn about models. It seems you place a lot of trust in statistical models, which unfortunately are know to be very unreliable. In contrast you seem to think physical models, the very basis of all science, become worthless as soon as you have a computer doing the math.

In that case I suggest you put the computer away, after all it was designed using just a physical model, the fact that you are using it to browse the internet must be purely your imagination. I’d advise against flying, since the airplane will have been designed using a computer model, and never, NEVER go into a skyscraper because the computer models used to design them are totally unreliable.
:dl:
 
artful dodging....

while he is following YOUR dismissal how answering this question......since you now have time.....

Poptech, if you are so convinced there is legitimate dissent in the scientific community then you should have no trouble producing some recent papers to support your opinion. Why don’t you give us 5 papers published in high impact journals in the last 6 months along with a description of how you think they support your belief.
Click to expand...
:popcorn1


This is a science forum....:garfield:
 
a_unique_person said:
This can be verified by running the models for known temperature records.
Click to expand...
This is called curve fitting.

a_unique_person said:
I have no doubt at all that the precision is problematic, but it gives us an idea of what happens when you start adding CO2 to the mix.
Click to expand...
The only idea it gives you is what happens when you run the code in the model that is programmed to get the results indended in relation to CO2.

a_unique_person said:
The models are also useful for understanding the past climate, so we can attribute how much change is due to CO2, and how much to other forcings.
Click to expand...
No they are not. They are just as useless. If you code X amount of CO2 causes X amount of temperature increase it will happen, this does not make it true in the real world.
 
Poptech said:
There are no journal articles not based on climate models supporting AGW. And there are plenty of journal articles supporting skepticism.

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-George

Other articles
Edited by Tricky: 
Long list of articles replaced with link to previous post.

Do not cut-and-paste large blocks of text. Since this is a set of references, it might be okay to allow it once, but repeatedly posting it against rule 6
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could tell us what is convincing about that Beck paper. I don't see it.
 
Poptech said:
I listed over 100 peer-reviewed papers already
Click to expand...
You failed to discuss any of them, and most were “published” in a crackpot newsletter. Those that were not were either long out of date or extensively refuted in real peer reviewed journals
 
Poptech said:
This is called curve fitting.
Click to expand...

In other words no amount of evidence could ever convince you, not even the raw data, because you have already decided in advance that AGW is a fraud.

Why do you come to a skeptics' forum and start a thread about this issue if you have no intention of discussing it, then ? Save us the trouble and time and find a forum dedicated to bashing global warming and post there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom