ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, October 08, 2015

Surprise! The models were off

As anyone who has been paying attention knew, the AGW/CC models were incorrect:
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly. He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”
The fact that the models were wrong has been totally freaking obvious for years because they completely failed as predictive models. That is supposed to be the sign to throw them out, or at the very least, try to fix them. But since "the science is settled", tens of thousands of credulous buffoons who blindly accept any pig-in-a-poke that is marketed as "science" are still insisting that if you don't take these inept and incorrect models seriously, you are an uneducated climaphobic Nazi denialist.

Or, as I prefer to pronounce it, "science-literate".

Labels: ,

109 Comments:

Blogger CM October 08, 2015 12:07 PM  

Any links?

Blogger Student in Blue October 08, 2015 12:07 PM  

I only hope Dr. Evans isn't made an example out of, in the bad way.

Also, I'm not seeing a link to the article discussed.

Blogger Jill October 08, 2015 12:09 PM  

Surprise, some of us have been saying this for years. I wish you'd have a link to this article, though. I generally like reading the whole articles that you quote from.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 08, 2015 12:10 PM  

Yep political rhetoric is not science unless you fucking love science then you can make science up

Blogger Hammerli280 October 08, 2015 12:10 PM  

Time for a serious fraud investigation of both the AGW pushers and the eco-guilt profiteers. Investigate, prosecute, convict, and imprison.

Blogger horsewithnonick October 08, 2015 12:17 PM  

What an...unsettling...development this is.

Blogger CM October 08, 2015 12:19 PM  

Here's a Link

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/04/claim-mathematical-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate-co2s-im0qct-about-a-fifth-or-tenth-of-what-the-ipcc-says-it-is/

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 08, 2015 12:19 PM  

Anyone who has been paying any attention to the issue, at all, who isn't a brain dead liberal (but I repeat myself) knows that the climate models are, as they say in Britain, bullocks.

In fact, one of the reasons I stopped being a Skeptic was that the organized Skeptic community supports AGW when by all the criteria they apply to other subjects it is clearly a pseudo science. That got me thinking about what else they were full of sh*t about. So here I am, around eight years later, a Christian.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 08, 2015 12:25 PM  

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Blogger Unknown the Elder October 08, 2015 12:26 PM  

@1 It's also a 10-part series in excruciating detail (with math) at the Jo Nova blog. BTW, I believe Dr. Evans is husband of Joanne Nova.

OpenID b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 October 08, 2015 12:27 PM  

But its the good intentions, the feelgoodz, and people being nicer to Mother Gaia that count.

FB is forever though, so it will be fun to go back and like a bunch of posts people had on their feed recently in another 5 years.

OpenID kbswift October 08, 2015 12:28 PM  

Let's hope he can publish his results, or at least produce some figures, to support his claims.

Blogger horsewithnonick October 08, 2015 12:33 PM  

I have decided the IFLScience crowd must have transposed the two words in the middle, as they appear to delight in carnally violating science, with little regard for science's consent.

Blogger Christopher Yost October 08, 2015 12:39 PM  

I've always been confused as to why more questions weren't asked of the models when every few months (it seems) some new aspect of natural climate control is discovered.

Parts of the ocean taking in more CO2 than originally thought, etc.

Blogger Noah B #120 October 08, 2015 12:43 PM  

Tell that to the vast groups of peaceful muslims who have been displaced by global warming and have no refuge available except for European taxpayers.

Blogger Harry Spitz October 08, 2015 12:46 PM  

It is important to realize that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change was never about climate change but about increasing government power on the part of State (and the UN) and getting government grants on the part of scamming "scientists.":

Blogger Salt October 08, 2015 12:48 PM  

All that wasted money. Bastards should pay it back.

Blogger OddRob October 08, 2015 12:51 PM  

I saw this posted on reddit the other day. The top comment said "...all we have is this guy's word that his un-reviewed analysis is correct. If he's correct, it will be in Nature/Science/whatever soon enough."

And these people say we're the ones who have "blind faith". Naturally, they didn't like it much when I pointed out that even the fraudulent study that purportedly found a link between autism and MMR was peer-reviewed and published in a medical journal.

Blogger John S October 08, 2015 12:54 PM  

Here's your pal Nero explaining his directly witnessing fraud taking place while working with the global warming trufans :

Global warming fraud
Starts about 2'35" in...

OpenID Steve October 08, 2015 1:02 PM  

All that wasted money. Bastards should pay it back.

Don't hold your breath, unless you want to reduce your CO2 emissions-bgs

Blogger Alexander October 08, 2015 1:06 PM  

I'd be willing to accept the money as gone for good, but between the lot of them we ought to be allowed to recuperate a few pounds of flesh.

Blogger Unknown the Elder October 08, 2015 1:07 PM  

@12 It's going to be 2 papers, as I understand it, and is in peer review now. Don't know which journal.

In theory, the new modelling should be predictive; but that takes time. If it merely does a good job of modelling the past, h owever, it will be better than current models.

Blogger Unknown the Elder October 08, 2015 1:13 PM  

OK, here's a good link for good general info from the link provided by @7.

Blogger HardReturn¶ October 08, 2015 1:15 PM  

Somewhere in the remote past the climate modeling may have really been done with all the sincerity of Linus in his pumpkin patch. Then it got peddled as Eschatology du Jour. And the grant money started flowing. Then the Credentialed Enlightened Priesthood began their prophetic exhortations: "Compliant citizens! Turn from your wicked ways! Forfeit your property, liberty, and lives to the State and All Will Be Well." Except this is what the secular priesthood prophesies every time.
Because science = Tyranny lulz

Blogger Anchorman October 08, 2015 1:15 PM  

I've tried talking to my oldest about this issue, but all I get is the boilerplate responses (97%!, hottest ___ on record!, You're only listening to oil companies propaganda!). Man, they pound that stuff into their heads early and often.

I forget, at times, a young person simply hasn't experienced the revelation that some folks are clearly lying and can't ever be trusted. I realized this when we were discussing the Iran nuke deal and I said, "[Let's leave aside the bad deal Obama struck] You do realize Iran's mullahs are lying, right?" And he said he didn't think they were lying at all and needed nuclear energy...because global warming.

Blogger Unknown the Elder October 08, 2015 1:17 PM  

@25 time for rhetoric? Get some ammo from Bjorn Lomborg and Mark Steyn.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata October 08, 2015 1:18 PM  

Would you ever respond to Taleb's Precautionary Principle with regard to global warming?

Blogger Robert October 08, 2015 1:25 PM  

Taleb's Precautionary Principle would dictate not taking the word of people who say global warming is going to cause catastrophe when there's no evidence that is or could be the case.

I just got back from Venice, expecting to see St. Mark's Square flooded with seawater. Not a drop in four days. Sea levels are the same as in 800 AD. Then I flew over Greenland and saw no sign of receding glaciers and no green at all.

Blogger Crowhill October 08, 2015 1:29 PM  

The idea (in the linked article) that this discovery will somehow alter the climate change debate is amusingly naive. AGW / Climate change was never about the science or the models. They were simply used as bludgeons.

Blogger Jourdan October 08, 2015 1:32 PM  

OT - Here on Capitol Hill, Majority Leader Kevin "Obama is Totes Bogus, Dude" McCarthy has just crashed and burned, drops out of race for Speaker.

Blogger CM October 08, 2015 1:33 PM  

Anchorman - how old?

I've been watching the syllabus for my son and so far, we've got mentos and soda and the scientific method. We've talked about being good stewards and caring for our home, but i want to preempt this without going beyond his knowledge threshold.

Its this and evolution.

Blogger Anchorman October 08, 2015 1:42 PM  

The oldest is 14.

It's not just the school. He also gets on podcasts and watches functional illiterates who use snark instead of argument. I can't control what happens in his mother's house and she gives a free pass for everything (part of her strategy to get the kids to like her because she broke apart the family).

He's a bright kid and "gets" a lot of what I've walked through patiently (such as SJW crap, protection of 2nd Amendment, etc). Unrelated to anything I said, he listened to a podcast on evo-psych. Still doesn't mean he doesn't look to rebel against his born-again, veteran, libertarian(ish) dad. He won't listen to a bit of reason on global warming, abortion, or socialism in general. At least, not yet. It's a process, I know.

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 1:42 PM  

@27 The Precautionary Principle is something you have to be very careful about. Especially about deciding what belongs under that umbrella and what doesn't. What leads to ruin and what doesn't, etc...

Taleb has made the case that things which have self-correcting mechanisms are not subject to TPP. Ergo the normal ebb and flow of seasons, planting, harvesting, etc... is no problem, but introducing GMOs is a major potential balance-upsetter (emphasis on the potential). The whole point is that there is a potential black swant built into GMOs. It is not inevitable, just potential.

The same does not apply to global warming. There are so many built-in self-correcting mechanisms it is just ludicrous to think that somehow it can "run away" with itself, which is what the AlGorites of the world have been trying to convince us. Just as an utterly simple example, a rise in CO2 automatically results in a rise in plant growth, because most vegetation thrives on CO2. And... if there is a rise in plant growth--guess what--there is a decline in CO2 as the plants consume it--AND, AND there is a lowering in temperature as the plants convert sunlight to energy and nutrition, rather than radiating it back into the atmosphere. This is just one small self-correcting mechanism in the climate, and there are many.

Just take as another for-instance, let's say that global warming outstrips plant vegetation's ability to cope, and we get a massive rise in temperature, melting of polar ice and whatnot. Well, for starters that's a lot more warm water for algae to grow in, and algae also converts sunshine and CO2 into oxygen.

But let's say global warming outstrips the algae. OK, so all mankind will perish? No, just some people. And it will slow down economies, and send large parts of humanity into survival mode. And this itself will restore balance, as more people start growing their own food, driving less, taking fewer intercontinental flights, etc.

Every ripple has repercussions, and most repercussions have the effect of restoring balance.

Now, I am all for having a clean environment. I dislike pollution, am sick to death of having to deal with plastic packaging for everything, and prefer to grow my own garden and compost as much of my organic waste as possible, etc...

I just don't think government programs are the way to accomplish it. In fact I think government is largely responsible for the wasteful practices we currently have. All the safety hand-wringers writing regulations and legislation against manufacturers have resulted in the explosion of plastic packaging for *everything*, and all sorts of additional sterilization measures enacted on our food unnecessarily. Governments have presided over the conversion of farming from local supplier of produce to massive consortiums that ship your food all over the country. The combination of regulations and subsidies have made industry into a collection of quasi-monopolies who don't have to be the least bit efficient in the broad scheme of things because their efficiencies of scale are found in other ways (tax avoidance, regulatory capture, you name it).

Also, Taleb himself mentions that "skin in the game" is a major predictor of who you should follow. So he should ask himself which players have skin in the game on the global warming front.

Blogger Russell Newquist October 08, 2015 1:52 PM  

You can find the original blog posts that kicked all this off here (they're the ones entitled "New Science 1, New Science 2, ..."). I'm still reading through them and trying to parse them, so no commentary on it yet.

Blogger Patrick Kelly October 08, 2015 2:34 PM  

@32 Anchorman: "The oldest is 14."

Hang in there. I found 14-15 to be the worst of it, ymmv.

Blogger frigger611 October 08, 2015 2:36 PM  

I've been saying the "models are off" all my life, in fact, that computer modeling is only a tool, a poor one at that, and ought to be thrown out when failure is the norm.

But leftists have a voodoo sort of love/fear for science and modernity so they will not question or be skeptical - if scientist man says it's so, he must be believed, or bad witch doctor curses will be visited upon thy family.

What a bunch of idiots. They'll still hold on to their precious computer modeling, no matter how many times you point out the error.

The only way I can see to correct their insanity is to take their life savings and throw them into the commodities markets with a "just-as-reliable" computer model to direct their trades. They'll wake up real fast.

Blogger Krul October 08, 2015 2:37 PM  

@25 Anchorman - "You're only listening to oil companies propaganda!"

Do oil companies even make propaganda? I've heard this accusation plenty of times, but I don't think I've ever seen any. Projection, probably.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers October 08, 2015 2:41 PM  

It's beyond doubt that most of the hype behind AGW/CC is political in nature, but there is also a psychological thing going on here. I've noticed a tendency for people to become so enamored of mathematical models that they are incredulous when the data stubbornly refuse to agree with a model, as though the model is objectively true. It's more pronounced with progressives, which is why they still think TENS and the various flavors of Marxism are good ideas.

Blogger CM October 08, 2015 2:44 PM  

a psychological thing going on here. I've noticed a tendency for people to become so enamored of mathematical models that they are incredulous when the data stubbornly refuse to agree with a model, as though the model is objectively true.

Like they've been told over and over that numbers never lie?

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 2:49 PM  

25. Anchorman October 08, 2015 1:15 PM

I take it your son is late high school or college age? A kid stuck on that sort of argument has to have his whole worldview shaken. Unless your son is a primarily dialectic and logical thinker, you just won't dismantle these arguments piece-by-piece. A young man caught up in the spirit du jour is too invested. You have two choices: steamroll him mercilessly on a rhetorical level, or just plant some seeds of doubt in his head and let time and events reveal the truth to him. Which way to proceed--I can't be your judge. Ironically, I think leaving the book "SJWs Always Lie" lying about where he can casually pick it up might have a better effect than a thousand logical arguments. Sweeping back the curtains, so to speak, on the stage of lies all is built upon.

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 08, 2015 2:50 PM  

The models have always been wrong. Even in the 1980s. Back when we first started pointing out that the Urban Heat Island Effect made what little data there was hopelessly corrupted data.

Turns out the data wasn't half as corrupt as the scientists who were backing it.

Blogger Anchorman October 08, 2015 2:54 PM  

Ironically, I think leaving the book "SJWs Always Lie" lying about where he can casually pick it up might have a better effect than a thousand logical arguments.

He already distrusts SJWs. He just doesn't see the connection between the SJW types and other Left methods of crowd manipulation.

But, yeah, if that comes out in dead tree, I'm buying a second copy.

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 2:57 PM  

@38. Stickwick Stapers October 08, 2015 2:41 PM

a. When you don't have a God, you search for something, anything that can speak with authority on the condition of the world.

b. (Orthogonally to a), Mathematics is a very seductive thing to certain minds. These are the kind of people who are actually depressed by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. I have witnessed it, and I find it kind of hilarious.

Blogger Forrest Bishop October 08, 2015 2:58 PM  

@33. rycamor October 08, 2015 1:42 PM
The same does not apply to global warming. There are so many built-in self-correcting mechanisms it is just ludicrous to think that somehow it can "run away" with itself, which is what the AlGorites of the world have been trying to convince us. Just as an utterly simple example, a rise in CO2 automatically results in a rise in plant growth, because most vegetation thrives on CO2. And... if there is a rise in plant growth--guess what--there is a decline in CO2 as the plants consume it--AND, AND there is a lowering in temperature as the plants convert sunlight to energy and nutrition, rather than radiating it back into the atmosphere.

1. That's a useful reply to the warmists. I like to point out to them that CO2 is a scarce resource for plants, and that every time I fire up one of my V8 engines I'm helping the entire biosphere by supplying it with this crucial nourishment. I can almost hear the trees alongside the freeway thanking me as I shove it on down into overdrive and gun the engine. They look so happy. I'm sure Al Gore feels the same way, with his $30,000/month natural gas bill (if that is true).

2. Actual greenhouse growers add CO2 for their plants, even to the point of quadrupling the natural amount (~400 ppm) for just this reason.

3. The term "greenhouse gas" is a fraud. It comes from the junk-science idea that the window glass of the green house absorbs radiation and re-emits it in the infrared, thereby heating the greenhouse up. But that isn't how a greenhouse works at all. The Sun heats up the stuff inside. The hot air rises but it can't escape the building. So the heat builds up inside. The greenhouse works by preventing convection from carrying away the heat. Adding CO2 has zero effect on this process.

4. I really, really wish AGW warming would come true- it would increase the size and range of the biosphere and increase the global average biomass per hectare (think Carboniferous Age). Maybe the IPCC is right after all, I sure hope so. I'm doing everything I can to help increase global warming but it's probably not going to be enough to stave off any impending global cooling or a new ice age.

OpenID Tom Joad October 08, 2015 2:59 PM  

Wow! A well-known professional climate denier claims he's found more proof! Stop the presses!

It's amazing what gets you all excited.

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 3:00 PM  

@42. Anchorman October 08, 2015 2:54 PM

He already distrusts SJWs. He just doesn't see the connection between the SJW types and other Left methods of crowd manipulation.


So bingo! There's your angle of attack. His problem isn't the mathematical models, but who he places trust in. Very few people are qualified to argue the mathematical models, but anyone is qualified to see the patterns of human behavior.

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 3:18 PM  

@45. Tom Joad October 08, 2015 2:59 PM

Wow! A well-known professional climate denier claims he's found more proof! Stop the presses!

It's amazing what gets you all excited.


So, who here can identify which logical fallacy and which rhetorical method Tom is using?

Blogger Forrest Bishop October 08, 2015 3:20 PM  

@45. Tom Joad October 08, 2015 2:59 PM

Wow! A well-known professional climate denier

He's not a climate denier. He also does not deny that the sun shines or that water is wet.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 08, 2015 3:20 PM  

I read a story somewhere in the MSM this morning that pretty much admitted there was never really solid evidence that saturated fat was bad for you, and the whole "bagels with fat free cream cheese and skim milk for breakfast" thing was a scam that did more harm than good. Some of us have been screaming that for years, but of course we were kooks who ate bacon and brie all day, because we spoke out against the conventional wisdom.

When all the right people want to believe something because it fits in with their worldview and ideology and provides them with opportunities to get rich and expand their power and influence, it takes very little evidence to be considered decisive. Cherry-pick a few studies, or just fake the data if you can't produce it any other way, and you're all set.

Blogger horsewithnonick October 08, 2015 3:29 PM  

Oh, I suppose I could, but...

I don't care.

Blogger horsewithnonick October 08, 2015 3:29 PM  

Oh, I suppose I could, but...

I don't care.

Blogger Patrick Kelly October 08, 2015 3:32 PM  

@40 rycamor "just plant some seeds of doubt in his head and let time and events reveal the truth to him."

This has worked for me.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 October 08, 2015 3:35 PM  

Tom Joad, professional reality denier with a subspecialty as a thermodynamics skeptic. Voted "most likely to think he has a right to have babies" by his graduating class at the Cowfarts School of Bitchcraft and Buggery.

Blogger Patrick Kelly October 08, 2015 3:36 PM  

@45 Wow, assertions vs. assertions.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 08, 2015 3:38 PM  

"So, who here can identify which logical fallacy and which rhetorical method Tom is using?"

I'm pretty sure it's the "I'm Tad, the Borderline Personality Disorder Faggot, and how dare anybody threaten to shut down the worldwide Drama-fest of the AGW hoax, because if there's one thing we BPD's love, especially flaming faggot BPD's...it's DRAMA!"

Blogger Forrest Bishop October 08, 2015 3:46 PM  

@43. rycamor October 08, 2015 2:57 PM

Mathematics is a very seductive thing to certain minds. These are the kind of people who are actually depressed by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. I have witnessed it, and I find it kind of hilarious.

Yeah, like they're really not going to become Masters of the Universe after all. You could cheer them up by pointing out that the Incompleteness Theorem is based on a Cantorian diagonalization argument that is false. There's any number of theoretically physicists, from the Pythagoreans on, who think that math is more real than the Universe itself. They says things like "the governing equation", or "the master equation", is "obeyed" (by whatever physical system). What they don't say is how the physics was informed of their edict. Jeans claimed that the Universe is composed of sine waves. Max Tegmark has taken to an extreme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis Heaviside noticed this in numerous places-

“It was once told as a good joke upon a mathematician that the poor man went mad and mistook his symbols for realities; as M for the moon and S for the sun.” - Oliver Heaviside

Blogger Anchorman October 08, 2015 3:56 PM  

I'm pretty sure it's the "I'm Tad, the Borderline Personality Disorder Faggot, and how dare anybody threaten to shut down the worldwide Drama-fest of the AGW hoax, because if there's one thing we BPD's love, especially flaming faggot BPD's...it's DRAMA!"

I'm sorry. You forgot to answer in the form of a question.

Blogger collisioncat67 October 08, 2015 3:58 PM  

I used to think that when damning evidence emerged that proved how erroneous the anthropogenic global climate change claims were,( as has happened several times in the recent past) that the propagators of the lie would employ sophisticated counter-measures to maintain the facade.
Disappointingly that is not the case.

They just ignore it.

They just continue on using main stream media to repetitively shriek "Global Warming...we're doomed if we don't let government save us!"

Most of the dunces who believe the MSM are programed to react to the phrase "Global Climate Change" like Pavlov's Dogs.

Blogger Doom October 08, 2015 4:00 PM  

"...20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades."

Seriously, you are letting that slide in spite of there being no rise in temperature for the last few decades? Arrest, try, and execute these criminals. Just for the economic harm from policies based on their lies they deserve to be executed. It is truly criminal.

Blogger Hammerli280 October 08, 2015 4:02 PM  

@56 Forrest Bishop:

Excellent point. The mathematical map is not the reality. It MAY be useful in describing the reality...but I can remember a materials engineering professor who tossed in a word question on a test. No math involved, just describe why an item with a rough surface would be stronger than one with a polished surface.

It was a question intended to separate the math majors from the real engineers. :-)

Blogger Quadko October 08, 2015 4:12 PM  

Headline: "Computer Bug Causes Global Warming!"

Apparently the science industry needs more QA testers, too.

@4: For them, science is their bitch, and if she ever says something they don't like they beat her into compliance.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 08, 2015 4:18 PM  

"Any links?"

There don't seem to be any except to a couple of newspaper articles, which is a red flag.  Further, Evans has been the subject of articles going all the way back to 2012 asserting more or less the same thing.  What are the odds that he REALLY has something now?  Very small.  What's the likelihood that coal interests were able to get a high-profile article into "Perthnow"?  You'd have to be a fool to bet against it.

Better hypothesis:  this is a pre-emptive attack on the Paris climate negotiations like the hacked CRU e-mails, but the denialists have already shot their wad on that one so they're trucking this guy out.

How you will be able to tell if the negotiators are actually serious about climate:  they will come out 100% for nuclear power, no matter what Germany and the Greens say.  They will start touting France and Sweden as models to emulate, not Denmark.  In other words, they'll sound like James Hansen.

"In theory, the new modelling should be predictive"

Recall that it was Sagan's success in modeling the structure of the atmosphere of Venus that set the stage for Earth's climate models.  This is not a science with no record, as some people like to describe "theory".

"Then the Credentialed Enlightened Priesthood began their prophetic exhortations: "Compliant citizens! Turn from your wicked ways! Forfeit your property, liberty, and lives to the State and All Will Be Well.""

Or you could just get enough people together to finance a nice, carbon-free, regional nuclear power plant and tell the Greens to enjoy their energy austerity but you'll have none of it. 

"I get is the boilerplate responses (97%!, hottest ___ on record!, You're only listening to oil companies propaganda!)."

Ignore Greens; they're a weapon of mass distraction.  The anti-nuclear movement, including the Nobel given to Hermann Muller for his fraudulent work which established the linear no-threshold model as the standard for radiation hazards, was financed at the outset by the Rockefeller Foundation:  oil money.  Your son has a kernel of truth in there.

Blogger Russell Newquist October 08, 2015 4:28 PM  

@62:

I posted the links earlier in the thread, but will repost. If you read through the ten posts (entitled "New Science 1," "New Science 2", etc), you'll see his entire case laid out pretty thoroughly.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

(apparently there's more to come)

I haven't had a chance to dig through all of his maths yet (and may leave that to someone here with a stronger math background than my own), but after a cursory read of all ten posts it does seem like he's built a good case. At a minimum, it's going to require somebody with a strong background on the material to actually refute it and show why he's wrong. Read them yourselves and make your own call.

--Leonidas

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 08, 2015 4:38 PM  

@45

CHOAD IS HERE!! Now it's a party.

Please Choad, tell us, oh He Who Loves Science Sexually...Tell us all ignorant knuckle dragging mouth breathers all about how settled the science supporting AGW is.

Don't forget to Google for all the ways corrupted data can be made sound by science magic!!

And...AND don't forget computer models. You'll find we are easily impressed by the extra sciencey, science powers of computer models!!!

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 4:44 PM  

@62. Engineer-Poet October 08, 2015 4:18 PM

"In theory, the new modelling should be predictive"

Recall that it was Sagan's success in modeling the structure of the atmosphere of Venus that set the stage for Earth's climate models. This is not a science with no record, as some people like to describe "theory".


There is not nor has there ever been such a thing as a predictive model for anything more complex than the 2-body problem. And once you have to factor in the fact that people make choices... it's simply not possible.

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 4:48 PM  

Just because a "predictive model" showed correct results for some instances in the past still does not make it a predictive model. It just makes it possibly somewhat more potentially likely to be true. But, there is actually a class of problems for which past predictive results actually make future predictions even more likely to be incorrect. This is when one tries to use the feedback from a predictive model to make adjustments to a chaotic system in the hope of controlling the future outcomes. The system often becomes *more*likely to cause a black swan event. See: 2008 financial meltdown.

Blogger JN October 08, 2015 4:51 PM  

@Anchorman

Have your son look at this. Even if the models were correct the data is skewed by bad sites.

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Blogger Danby October 08, 2015 4:53 PM  

@62 Engineer-Poet, the shorter version;
Anthropogenic Global warming must be true because I want nuclear power!

Blogger Floyd Looney October 08, 2015 5:03 PM  

Have any 2 "climate" models ever had the same result...

Blogger Floyd Looney October 08, 2015 5:05 PM  

In the Early Carnonaceous Period CO2 was MUCH higher than now, and it was warm and... and... there was more life per square meter than there is anywhere on Earth now.

Blogger Forrest Bishop October 08, 2015 5:08 PM  

@60. Hammerli280 October 08, 2015 4:02 PM
I can remember a materials engineering professor who tossed in a word question on a test. No math involved, just describe why an item with a rough surface would be stronger than one with a polished surface.
It was a question intended to separate the math majors from the real engineers. :-)


Dang! That's tough. Seems to me the object would be stronger if it were smooth. I'd pull out my Timoshenko but I don't remember him working out the derivation for this one. Without looking, is it something to do with Euler's Buckling Criterion at the microscale? I'm sure there must be some good IPCC-style supercomputer models for this problem by now, maybe at NASA Ames?
Or by "strength" are you referring to tension and/or bending? In tension the roughness could act as a starting point for fracture, so wouldn't the object would be weaker if it were rough?

Blogger Stickwick Stapers October 08, 2015 5:09 PM  

rycamor: Mathematics is a very seductive thing to certain minds. These are the kind of people who are actually depressed by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. I have witnessed it, and I find it kind of hilarious.

Michael Heller talks about this in his book, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. It's a weird sort of perfectionism in some scientists that compels them to look for explanations of a system qua the system, i.e. a desire for a completely self-contained model that has no loose ends, nothing that is unexplained, and nothing that suggests anything outside the system. I don't know if this compulsion is a direct product of the atheistic worldview, but regardless, the two are strongly correlated. This is why the quality of science will continue to deteriorate the further it gets from its Christian roots.

Blogger SirHamster October 08, 2015 5:30 PM  

Do oil companies even make propaganda?

I consider all the Green Investment marketing from energy companies to be a form of it.

Solar/Wind as energy sources are scams. (grid independence is a different functionality)

OpenID Steve October 08, 2015 5:32 PM  

28 Venice, expecting to see St. Mark's Square flooded with seawater. Not a drop in four days. Sea levels are the same as in 800 AD

There was more sinking before that into the mud.

Its this and evolution. You could teach him white privilege is evolution that's why Asians have it also, but I recommend Aesop's fables as it was written by a white slave, and shows that all of progressives ideas are old & used.

money as gone for good, but between the lot of them we ought to be allowed to recuperate a few pounds of flesh

Whale oil used to be used as fuel, we have tons available.

Blogger SirHamster October 08, 2015 5:48 PM  

@71
Dang! That's tough. Seems to me the object would be stronger if it were smooth.

My guess is that a rough surface indicates a mixture of materials rather than a pure substance. Lots of engineering relies on special properties of alloys.

Or, if we're working with the same material, that the polished surface is taking one item and scraping chunks of it off, ending up with less material, as well as damaging to the structure, compared to the unpolished item. If the material doesn't want to crystallize/form smoothly, then forcing it into that state could reduce its structural integrity.

Blogger Jim Milo October 08, 2015 7:10 PM  

8@

In fact, one of the reasons I stopped being a Skeptic was that the organized Skeptic community supports AGW when by all the criteria they apply to other subjects it is clearly a pseudo science.


Most "skeptics" enforce the status quo. And then there is the Elevator Rape problem.

Sigh. On one of my last forays on to Facebook, I made an offhanded comment about AGW. Someone who I thought knew better started skewering me with talking points. This fellow is a rather successful lawyer too, a smart guy, a nice guy, but he was treating it as a case.

So that's why it was one of my last forays into Facebook.

I wonder what he would say about the crucifix around my neck?

Blogger Jim Milo October 08, 2015 7:17 PM  

@25 I believe both the Americans and the Persians are lying.

Blogger Jim Milo October 08, 2015 7:20 PM  

@28 Our tour guide in Venice knew only one phrase in English.

"You fall in, instant cholera!" This was in 89, is it still that bad?

Blogger Jim Milo October 08, 2015 7:23 PM  

@37 Oil money here (Texaco mostly). They most certainly do.

But what other fuel are you going to use? Set up nuke plants for all those electric car batteries?

Blogger Jim Milo October 08, 2015 7:34 PM  

@44 "Greenhouse gas" is a talking point, like "gateway drug." And you're right about CO2 and plants, although some idiot always forgets about proper ventilation, or thinks CO is the same thing, or both, resulting in death.

Blogger JAY WILL October 08, 2015 7:51 PM  

Give it a hundred years and they will be praying they can find something to burn to stop another ice age freezing our descendants to death.





Blogger SciVo October 08, 2015 8:28 PM  

Anchorman @42: He already distrusts SJWs. He just doesn't see the connection between the SJW types and other Left methods of crowd manipulation.

The more he knows about thought control techniques (and how to counter them), the better. Try introducing him to Propaganda by Edward Bernays, Influence by Robert Cialdini, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Lifton, Combating Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan, etc.

Blogger WATYF #0222 October 08, 2015 8:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 08, 2015 9:02 PM  

Hey, those @ things are clickable!  Can I do that?  Trying it out.

@63

"I posted the links earlier in the thread, but will repost."

I know I don't have the time to read, digest and critique all of that, and I doubt that the "climate skeptics" commenting here can point out the differences between the established models and Evans' alleged corrections of same.  AFAICT, we're all equally ignorant on this.  What we can do is look at the reason an "explosive NEW development!" would be getting a lot of press RIGHT NOW, and that doesn't look at all good for the Evans supporters.

"it's going to require somebody with a strong background on the material to actually refute it and show why he's wrong."

Exactly.  But people who haven't even got the math to complete the square and derive the quadratic formula are treating this guy like he's the second coming of Christ.  I shouldn't have to point out the problem, especially to people whose religion tells them to beware false prophets.

"There is not nor has there ever been such a thing as a predictive model for anything more complex than the 2-body problem."

Look, nitwit, I've worked in a pile of industries where physics, chemistry and a host of other things have to work according to experience or the whole thing simply fails.  A great many things are predictable and predicted quite successfully, and one of the consequences is that you can drive a car fueled by hydrocarbons and still have remarkably clean air to breathe.  So realize that you don't know what you're talking about.

"once you have to factor in the fact that people make choices..."

Chemistry, thermodynamics and radiation physics have no such factors.  Believing that the natural world cares what you think is a post-modernist delusion.  Why are YOU taking "social construction" seriously?

@68

"Anthropogenic Global warming must be true because I want nuclear power!"

You have this wrong so many ways it's not funny, but most people don't know the history to understand why.  It's much easier to grasp if you realize that the phenomenon of the Cuckservatives/RINOs having more or less the same agenda as the Democrats/Marxists is not sui generis, it is the rule in American society on any issue of importance.  The scheme is to control the bounds of acceptable opinion so they are all favorable to the people pulling the strings.

There's a Tolstoy-volume back story to this, but one of the most important points can be understood if you know that an early slogan of the Sierra Club was "Atoms, Not Dams".  It seems inconceivable that the Sierra Club was founded on a pro-nuclear platform, but it was.  It was also for ZPG, to protect America's wild spaces from development.

What does the Sierra Club stand for today?  It is completely anti-nuclear and its most generous donor (David Gelbaum) is reported to have said that he will cut it off if it ever adopts a position against immigration.  In short, all its original pro-environment positions have been reversed... at the behest of the money people.

Who are the wealthiest money people today?  They're the ones with oil.  Rod Adams has probed oil-interest involvement quite a bit, and I suggest looking at his pieces mentioning Rockefeller and also those tagged Smoking Gun to see just how deep the rot runs.  It was Rockefeller Foundation money which established "linear, no threshold" as the rule for radiation risks.  Even the 1958 BEAR report published results which proved the opposite, but the money demanded otherwise and the money got its way.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 08, 2015 9:06 PM  

@70

"In the Early Carnonaceous Period CO2 was MUCH higher than now"

The Carboniferous era was about 360-300 million years BP.  The Sun brightens at about 1% per 100 million years, as hydrogen converts to denser helium and the core requires higher temperature to prevent contraction.  High CO2 was required to keep the globe out of iceball conditions then; today, the same levels would be disastrous.

@73

SirHamster, you have it.


@79

"But what other fuel are you going to use? Set up nuke plants for all those electric car batteries?"

Yes, of course.  Why not?  And make little nukes so that the spent steam can heat all your cities as well.  Uranium is far cheaper than natural gas; $2.57/million BTU at the Henry hub can't come close to the 0.2¢/kWh that heat from enriched uranium costs.  The major expense in nuclear plants today is all the inspectors and regulators.  We know how to make things simple and safe enough to dispense with them, all we have to do is change the law to get rid of them.

@81

"Give it a hundred years and they will be praying they can find something to burn"

Spent fuel from light-water reactors "burns" nicely in heavy-water reactors.

Blogger Desiderius October 08, 2015 9:24 PM  

"I don't know if this compulsion is a direct product of the atheistic worldview, but regardless, the two are strongly correlated. This is why the quality of science will continue to deteriorate the further it gets from its Christian roots."

Regrettably, it's a human failing, not an atheist one. See Systematic Theology.

It's just that currently the type of minds most susceptible to it tend to be drawn to non-theistic institutions rather than the church.

Blogger Desiderius October 08, 2015 9:28 PM  

Cruz vs Sierra scientistry/tokenism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

Blogger Roy Lofquist October 08, 2015 10:11 PM  

@63

You wrote:

Believing that the natural world cares what you think is a post-modernist delusion. Why are YOU taking "social construction" seriously?

The Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum enigma:

According to the interpretation, the interaction of an observer or apparatus that is external to the quantum system is the cause of wave function collapse, thus according to Paul Davies, "reality is in the observations, not in the electron".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Collapse_theories

Blogger rycamor October 08, 2015 10:40 PM  

@84. Engineer-Poet October 08, 2015 9:02 PM

"There is not nor has there ever been such a thing as a predictive model for anything more complex than the 2-body problem."

Look, nitwit, I've worked in a pile of industries where physics, chemistry and a host of other things have to work according to experience or the whole thing simply fails.


And yet we still haven't solved the 3-body problem. So what level of complexity do they rise to?


"once you have to factor in the fact that people make choices..."

Chemistry, thermodynamics and radiation physics have no such factors. Believing that the natural world cares what you think is a post-modernist delusion. Why are YOU taking "social construction" seriously?

@68

"Anthropogenic Global warming must be true because I want nuclear power!"


Don't you see what you did there? This is exactly what I am talking about. The whole point of the predictable model being touted by the AGW people is that people are involved. Ergo, not predictable.

Anyway the other things you are talking about are not predictive models but formulas, which are quite a different thing. Formulas don't depend on hazy, ill-understood interactions between phenomena. Generally when mathematicians, scientists, economists, statisticians and engineers use the term "predictive model" they mean "we don't really know all the interactions but based on our stochastic analysis of past events, we think things will go this way."

Blogger CM October 08, 2015 11:54 PM  

I don't really care how this engineer poet guy disqualifies Evans.

I've been hearing for years how stupid AGW-deniers are and that there aren't any scientists who disagree with this cult-science.

This proves that is BULL. He may be in ill repute, but he IS a scientist.

And I'm hard pressed to think of anyone willing to stake their reputation on going against the status quo unless there's something to the argument.

Blogger Groot October 09, 2015 1:39 AM  

@25. Anchorman:
"I've tried talking to my oldest about this issue, but all I get is the boilerplate responses ... Man, they pound that stuff into their heads early and often."

You have my sympathies, as I have teenagers (and beyond). Just keep talking, with humor and clarity. They are listening, despite evidence to the contrary. Much of reality, and most people, seem to be cut-and-paste, but your offspring are precious and love can be the precious difference. Keep loving them. Good luck and best wishes.

Blogger James Dixon October 09, 2015 6:13 AM  

> I've been hearing for years how stupid AGW-deniers are and that there aren't any scientists who disagree with this cult-science.

And you've been hearing lies. Lots of scientists disagree. They just don't get publicity or funding.

Blogger CM October 09, 2015 6:30 AM  

And you've been hearing lies. Lots of scientists disagree. They just don't get publicity or funding.

And the modus operandi for arguing against these scientists is "Disqualify".

I get it - when a subject requires a bit more knowledge and understanding than a simple layman can understand, disqualification is generally the only recourse.

But on this, it takes the simple good of CO2 and turns it into an evil nightmare.

Current AGW alarmism just does not match up with simple biology and chemistry.

OpenID cglasgow99 October 09, 2015 10:16 AM  

One of the first clues that hammered home to me that the world had collectively lost its god-damned mind was when I was in a scientific argument, stated one of the basic principles of the scientific method ('do not arbitrarily discard observed data points simply because they conflict with your current theory')... and the other party looked at me as if I'd sprouted a second hand.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 09, 2015 11:00 AM  

@89

"Don't you see what you did there? This is exactly what I am talking about. The whole point of the predictable model being touted by the AGW people is that people are involved. Ergo, not predictable."

If I dump gasoline on your bed while you're sleeping in it and throw a lit match on it, it's certain that your bed will be on fire in about half a second.  An almost certain result is that you will be severely burned, and a very likely result is that you will die.  Despite two humans being involved the outcomes are fairly well-determined.

If you don't want to be exposed as a fool, don't use foolish arguments.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 09, 2015 11:01 AM  

@90

"I don't really care how this engineer poet guy disqualifies Evans."

Maybe if you paid attention to his crackpot "notch filter" theory you'd develop some healthy skepticism.  Note that Motl's takedown is over a year old already.

"He may be in ill repute, but he IS a scientist."

He's an electrical engineer.  So am I.  If you knew anything about the field, you'd realize that he is a case of "if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".  He is as far down the rabbit hole as the mathematician whose theory of horse racing only works for perfectly spherical horses in a vacuum.  But he claims to have proven the climate scientists wrong, which confirms your tribal ideology, so to you he is the second coming of Christ.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the problem is your tribal ideology.  You can't even whip the Greens by exposing their contradictions because you're a soft anti-nuke.  Between car-train collisions and gas-line explosions and pollution in general there are plenty of reasons to want to cut down or get rid of coal and natural gas, but you'll dig in your heels because that's "their position" and you have to be for everything they're against and vice versa.

"I'm hard pressed to think of anyone willing to stake their reputation on going against the status quo"

His short bio in the Financial Post sounds like he's retired.  And he has a lot to gain from this.  If he was just another voice with the climate scientists he'd be nobody, but he's gotten quite a bit of notoriety and a big camp of supporters by coming out against them.  He may be able to parlay this into travel and speaking engagements, paid for by adoring fans.  Helen Caldicott has made a living from more or less the same act, no matter how wrong she's always been.  He may well manage it too.

Blogger Danby October 09, 2015 2:00 PM  

We get it EP, you're a religious convert. The rest of us don't accept your theology.
You can scream all you want about who this guy is and why we shouldn't listen to him. The question is, do the numbers add up. AGW's numbers don't add up. The most beautiful model that cannot predict how a system reacts is just an exercise in wankery.

Climate models have consistently failed to predict the actions of the actual system for over 50 years

So stop wanking and start thinking.

Blogger rycamor October 09, 2015 2:44 PM  

Engineer-Poet is just another aspie troll with abysmal reading comprehension. Ignore.

OpenID cglasgow99 October 09, 2015 3:05 PM  

The only real test of a theory's validity is "does it give accurate predictions".

If it doesn't, then it's cute... but it's wrong!

Blogger rycamor October 09, 2015 5:26 PM  

cglasgow99, my point is beyond that. Predictive models that are based on statistical analysis of past events are not predictive, even IF they seem to work. Just because the model happens to conform to events up to a certain point is literally no guarantee that events will continue to conform to the model. Predictive models lull people into thinking we can know the future. This is seductive, and wrong.

In fact, they shouldn't even be thought of as "potentiative" because the critical prediction most people hope from these models is what they are least likely to give you (dangerous black swan events). We are probably just as likely to get a disastrous new ice age as we are to get a sudden warming event. For all we know, implementing all the plans of the AGW crowd could backfire and cause exactly what they fear.

Blogger James Dixon October 09, 2015 6:37 PM  

> I get it - when a subject requires a bit more knowledge and understanding than a simple layman can understand, disqualification is generally the only recourse.

Except that in this case even a layman can easily understand the level of lying involved. The models being used don't account for the Medieval Warm Period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period). They simply claim it didn't happen.

> If I dump gasoline on your bed while you're sleeping in it and throw a lit match on it, it's certain that your bed will be on fire in about half a second. An almost certain result is that you will be severely burned, and a very likely result is that you will die. Despite two humans being involved the outcomes are fairly well-determined.

If. How are you going to get into his house? How are you going to get the gasoline into his house? What makes you think you'll be successful at either dousing his bed or lighting the match? Citing a course of action you're extremely unlikely to be able to carry out as "well-determined" doesn't really make your case. It does a better job of making his.

> He's an electrical engineer. So am I.

That's funny, so am I. I'm unimpressed by your arguments.

Blogger Ragin' Dave October 10, 2015 2:17 PM  

It's much easier to explain when you realize that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a religion, not an actual fact-based argument. There is more proof of God's existence than there is of AGW being an actual thing.

And once you realize that the AGW supporters are just regurgitating their religious statements of belief, you can begin to deal with them in the same kind of manner you deal with Hare Krishnas, Heaven's Gate cultists and other lunatic nut jobs.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 13, 2015 3:21 PM  

Well.  I've tried to rebut the nonsense above but my comments have been disappearing into moderation for two days now.  This WOULD fit into two comments, but I'll have to break it up into lots of littler ones to appease the gatekeepers.

@97

I see SJWs are not the only ones who always project; much more and you'll be installed in a movie theater.  Here you are, accepting e.g. the blatantly false claims in @28 without a quibble (some Greenland glaciers are receding at over a mile a year) while calling me a "religious convert".

Hint:  responding to dialectic with rhetoric is logic fail.  Also stupid, unless your audience is also too stupid to follow dialectic.  In that case you're all losers.

"You can scream all you want about who this guy is and why we shouldn't listen to him. The question is, do the numbers add up."

I haven't seen his numbers, nor do I have time to dig deeply into his claims to see if they bear up.  Climate modeling is not my bailiwick.  Neither is it yours.  I shouldn't have to point out to you that when you are so desperate for authority figures that you flock after any prophet-figure, no matter how farcical his claims, you are setting yourself up for a huge fall.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 13, 2015 3:22 PM  

Well.  I've tried to rebut the nonsense above but my comments have been disappearing into moderation for two days now.  This WOULD fit into two comments, but I'll have to break it up into lots of littler ones to appease the gatekeepers.

@97

I see SJWs are not the only ones who always project; much more and you'll be installed in a movie theater.  Here you are, accepting e.g. the blatantly false claims in @28 without a quibble (some Greenland glaciers are receding at over a mile a year) while calling me a "religious convert".

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 13, 2015 3:24 PM  

For two days I've been speaking truth to the gatekeeper, and the gatekeeper has refused to let it pass.  Here goes with something that might squeak through.

@97

I see SJWs are not the only ones who always project; much more and you'll be installed in a movie theater.  Here you are, accepting e.g. the blatantly false claims* in @28 without a quibble while calling me a "religious convert".

* Some Greenland glaciers are receding at over a mile a year:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/16/northeast-greenlands-ice-loss-triples/6385095/

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 13, 2015 3:26 PM  

@102 @97 et al:

Your nonsense is easily refuted, but the refutation has been blocked by an automatic gatekeeper for 2 days and counting.  Even radically trimmed-down excerpts are held to become "visible after approval", which never comes.

So much for an un-censored dialogue.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 13, 2015 3:27 PM  

The auto-censor won't let anything through (though maybe this one sentence might).

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 13, 2015 3:32 PM  

I can't even get 7 words in.

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 15, 2015 5:03 PM  

And the initial comments, which had the full text, were the ones not retrieved from the black hole of moderation.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts