No I didn't. That's your job since you made the claim. Note that I never questioned the veracity of your claim however.
Do this more often, and people will be less inclined to chuckle and dismiss your stories out of hand.
LOL...“A global climate model that does not simulate current climate accurately does not necessarily imply that it cannot produce accurate projections”
Sure, there is a slim chance the model can be accurate long term and not sort term, but i wouldn't bet on it like the followers on the AGW alarmists do.
No I didn't. That's your job since you made the claim. Note that I never questioned the veracity of your claim however.
Do this more often, and people will be less inclined to chuckle and dismiss your stories out of hand.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.htmlEinstein was attacked by some with anti-Jewish leanings. When a pamphlet was published en led 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
Your appeal to authority logical fallacy fails, because almost none of them have the specific scientific expertise needed to be authority on climate science.
You have, in essence, an op-ed piece, when what is actually needed is a scientific paper.
Congrats, you have another Oregon pe ition.
One bad sentence in one research paper.
The only logical conclusion then is what? We throw it all out? It is all bunk?
Is that what you are trying to say here?
THis whole things reminds me of a post I recently read.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1401Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees. They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience." Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?
Based on the job les listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.
Ah yes, the ever-more-popular goalpost shift of "catastrophic climate change". The letter of course provides no examples of NASA GISS public releases or websites claiming that CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change, and of course provides zero examples of these mysterious "hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists" who disbelieve these unspecified catastrophic claims. As is always the case with these types of letters, it is all rhetoric and no substance.
"As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate."
As Skeptical Science readers are undoubtely well aware, the impact of natural climate drivers has been very thoroughly studied, and they simply cannot account for the observed global warming or climate change, especially over the past 50-65 years (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).
The contrarians continue:
"We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."
If NASA administrators were to censor the organization's climate scientists at the behest of a few of its former employees who have less climate science experience and expertise combined than the summer interns at NASA GISS, that would really damage NASA's exemplary reputation.
Expertise Matters
Let's be explicit about our choice here.
On the one hand we have a bunch of former administrators, astronauts, and engineers who between them have zero climate expertise and zero climate science publications.
On the other hand we have the climate scientists at NASA GISS who between them have decades, perhaps even centuries of combined professional climate research experience, and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of peer-reviewed climate science publications.
No, in fact, the post was more about the challenge posed than the idiotic statement.
Can any of the anthropogenic global climate change proponents produce a model, ostensibly predicting climate 30 to 50 years out, that will accurately predict today's climate when populated with real data from 30 to 50 years ago?
That was the challenge.
Do you know if anyone in the AGCC community would be willing to take the challenge?
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html
Sophism in the modern definition is a specious argument used for deceiving someone.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...20&postcount=2
From reading the letter, I don't think the 50 scientists claimed to be authorities on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change -- , I would be willing to bet they believe there's no such thing as an expert in that field -- but, they do seem to be experts on the scientific method...and, their beef seems to be not that NASA and GISS are advancing false information but that NASA and GISS are failing to do due diligence and not following proper scientific protocols before becoming hyper-advocates for a position -- these 50 people believe is not supported by any empirical evidence.
Do we need perfect models to make reasonable guesses as to outcomes?
Can we just test the models with known data from 30 to 50 years ago to see how "reasonable" are the "guesses" about today's climate?
They did not make the claim that they were experts. The Deniers did.
Further they did not bother saying exactly what they objected to, either as has already been pointed out.
They also pretty much imply that "a thorough study" of "natural climate drivers" has not been done, or that we need perfect evidence before reaching reasonable conclusions.
The question remains:"As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate."
Do we need perfect evidence before drawing reasonable conclusions?
I don't know of any CEO that waits for perfect information before making decisions.
That actually isn't what they said.
They simply want a more thorough review, as has been pointed out.
You see what you want to see.
Answering a question with a question.
That is not the response of someone being intellectually honest.
My response to your question:
Sure. That is the way one tests models anyways, to my understanding.
Now answer mine.
@Randomguy
We don't need perfect models or perfect evidence (they don't exist, btw). We just need good ones based on good data that produce results we are confident in.
I would suggest reading this blog entry by climateologist, Judith Curry.
The rest can be read at http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/wh...limate-models/
Such a novel concept
You need reasonable evidence to reach reasonable conclusions.
Has this been done?
Have the models now predicting catastrophic results, in the future, been applied to known historical data and, if so, what were the results? How close did they predict today's global climate?
And, I don't think you and I read the same letter...
Substantiated vs. supported, thousands of years vs. any empirical evidence; meh, I wrote the sentence from what I remembered from the letter.
In either case, that is clearly what they are saying.
I stand by my other characterization of the letter, as well.
So, how'd it work out? Did their models accurately predict the current climate?
I didn't see the word "perfect" any where in the quote you pulled from the letter on which you based this response.
No, you did not.
As I said, the implication that somehow, after decades of research by tens of thousands of scientists, and a rather voluminous amount of peer reviewed scientific research that we have not "thoroughly studied" how natural factors may "possibly overwhelm" any man-made factors, directly implies that there is some level of evidence not yet achieved to reach a reasonable conclusion that we might need to modify our actions.
Define reasonable.
Or I could simply ask that,
for any given scientific field, if decades of research in that field resulting in hundreds of research papers tends to point to one theory as being the most likely one, and arrives at that conclusion based on multiple lines of evidence, is does that reach the level where one can reasonably accept that explanation as being the most probable one?
I hope even you would admit those decades of research have been marred with miscalculations, errors, misrepresentations, and scientific malpractice, to the point where it is reasonable to question the validity of the absolute certainty being claimed by Al Gore and the GISS's Hansen.
Sorry, I think the top-tier AGCC proponents have lost all credibility with the world. They need to field a new team with their reputations intact if any of this is to be taken seriously.
Not when there's evidence of unscientific complicity to arrive at that explanation.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
