NortonH

I am quite sincere. I have asked some inconvenient questions and received sneers in response. Your own response being the rudest so far. What 'tricks' have i played? Perhaps you can answer the questions you quoted. It seems that the Scientific Method is all but irrelevant on this site.

Hi Moderator. What is your point exactly? I get the impression that I have rubbed some people up the wrong way for asking what I consider to be legitimate questions. Is there a problem with that? Are my questions not legitimate? Science is supposed to be scrutinised and tested.

Studiot I gave you polite answers to all your questions so I do not undertand your petulence. It seems that any question requiring a scientific answer gets your back up. Strange. I get that the individual components of a model are established (eg CO2 IR absorption) but the point is that a model which combines all necessary components is a very complex thing that also needs to be confirmed in its own right. I can give you the model for two ping pong balls colliding or hitting a solid surface but I cannot tell you which ball will be chosen from one of those lottery machines. I have do disagree about weather models. I have compared forecasts with results a week later and the accuracy is not good. Regarding the testing of the models - to me this is the critical part. Can you tell me of any models I can look at? Do you have any links? As far as I am concerned this would clinch it as far as the assignment is concerned. Demonstration of a credible model makes or breaks the whole theory. Am I wrong to ask this question? You accuse me of sowing doubt. Well I HAVE DOUBT. I have not seen a model, let alone seen one tested so am I wrong to say this? Am i wrong to express scepticism of something I have not seen? Is this not precisely what the SM says I should do??? The point of this exercise is to apply the SM to climate change. It is not about proving or disproving any theory.

Studiot you asked more than one question - that is why i was unsure which one you were referring to. I have tried to answer them all. In any case the subject is not relevant - my title was the Scientific Method applied to climate science. That is what it is about. I do understand the SM and I suggest that it be used as the sole guide to resolving matters of science. I do not believe that any parts are optional. Regarding the model - I see plenty of predictions being made about future climate and so my instinct is to ask "what model was used to make that prediction?". So far I have not seen any models capable of making credible predictions. As I understand the SM this tells me that such predictions are therefore baseless. Your second question was also answered in my original post: He has been asked to apply the formal scientific method analysis to the question of 'climate change'. That is clear and unambiguous. The whole point of the exercise is to get students to start thinking about the terms being used. We hear about climate change, people tell us what we have to do about it but it is only when we started this project that people realised it was all a bit vague. This was the subject of one of the first feedback sessions. To answer your next questions - students will apply the formal scientific method analysis to the question of 'climate change'. Why do you say that the concept of the Null Hypothesis is a 'statsitical technique'? It is not just statistical, it is the basic SM. Why are you now focusing specifically on statistics? ?? The Null Hypothesis in the case of climate is basically that everything is behaving normally and there is nothing happening that is out of the ordinary. I note that this is round three and still you have not produced any model. Are you trying to tell me that a model is not necessary? Strange "There are obviously models because they are used by climate scientists. " Well that is the question. Should these models not be open to scrutiny? If they cannot be scrutinized then how do we test them? Do we even need to? "But none of these are much use by themselves because they all interact. " Yes. That seems to be where it gets complicated. I am not clear how the concept of falsification does not apply - I thought it was fundamental to the SM. I am glad that you brought up the concept of weather forecasts - they exist but are notoriously unreliable. So let me rephrase my point - I am sure that some models exist (as discussed above) but are they reliable? How can we know if we are not able to test them? So this seems to come back to what I wrote earlier - No model means no scientific theory. To me the model is crucial and I do not see how it can be sidestepped.

Pontificating? I find it odd that you are so dismissive of the scientific method as i had assumed it was the basis for everything. What have I not understood? Do we need a model or not? Not sure which question you are referring to. What needs to be falsified? Whatever theory is being proposed to replace the null hypothesis. So far I am unable to get anyone to tell me what that theory is in any non-vague way. Can you? Can you provide a model? As I understand the SciMethod that is required. No? Subject - General Science. Strange - The teacher expects something to be said about models and some indication that one exists and has not yet been falsified. Few people even got this far on the first feedback session. We know we need a model but cannot find one anywhere. Einsteins model is easy to find, in contrast. Why is that a terrible example???? I thought it was fantastic. What is wrong with that theory? A simpler thing to look at is the basic physics of how CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. Yes but that is a single component of the model which needs to describe the climate of the planet. When I see the number of mechanisms going on in the Earths climate i doubt a model can exist really. I suspect that is what the teacher is driving at. Like a model for the stock market.

The point is that if you cannot produce a model you do not have a theory. Regarding Pascals Wager, it does not add any information to your system, it just makes you reassess the risk/reward matrix. If you are unable to accurately predict this matrix (because you have no model) then you are still at square one. My sons teacher made this a term project and has already sent kids feedback along the lines of 'no model, no science'. I am beginning to wonder whether he kind of knew in advance that there was no answer.

That is a case of Pascals Wager, I believe. I suppose the basic problem I have is that it is impossible to find a model for the climate so there is nothing to falsify. If I suggest this then the teacher (who seems to be a denier) will claim that it is not scientific. No Model means No Science.

hint the clues are in the words 'change' and 'null' That sounded like a snarky comment. In any case it was not particularly informative was it?. I was rather hoping that someone could provide some info about what model I am supposed to use. String Junky, Yes I want to put numbers to something - but what? The example given as a guide was Einsteins theory of relativity. It is described by a single equation, provides it falsification criteria, has been tested thousands of ways and has never been falsified. I realise that i cannot even get of the starting blocks with this one. Which model do we consider?

Thanks for your rather snarky response. Actually I was wondering whether someone else might be able to help. What exactly do i 'put numbers' to? I think i need a quantitative model.

I am helping my son with a high school project so I want to make sure i get this 10000% right! He has been asked to apply the formal scientific method analysis to the question of 'climate change'. I went to wiki and summarised the method to .. 1. Observe world and propose something 2. Show the Null Hypothesis does not stand 3. Propose new hypothesis 4 Produce quantitative model and falsification criteria 5 New theory holds a long as model is never falsified I must say, although it all looks so simple I am rather stuck. There seems to be a lot of vagueness in what is discussed and the model bit really baffles me. Any help appreciated. PS> The more sources I look at the more wide and vague the whole question becomes, HELP!

The answer is to look at Game Theory. Men are programmed to breed and spread genes. They are also programmed to defeat competition. They are always worried that they may be providing for the offspring of another male if their female is promiscuous. If they find females who do not appear to be likely to have sex with other males then these are ideal partners for spreading his genes. Remember that for most of primate history the females were not always necessarily willing partners.