Scientific Method in climate science

[beecee]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

Beecee - I will accept an answer if it appears logical and correct. I do not just accept anything I am told without honest sceptical analysis. I have not mentioned any politics so why do you bring that up? It is irrelevant to science.

In my opinion the answers you have been given, are entirely honest and correct. And while politics is irrelevant to science, it is not irrelevant to people that most certainly approach a science forum and subsequent question, with no intention of accepting any answer that conflicts with his pre-ordained point of view.

 

Quote

The fact that you choose to quote opinion from the IPCC rather than compare the predictions with the results shows that you are happy to accept argument from authority. I am not.

Yes, I have seen that "excuse" used by many that I have described in my previous answer. Let me assure you that we all, all of us including you, except arguments/decisions from authority every day of our lives. Plus as an amateur in this field, I certainly do accept the opinions from reputable authority, [which I have found mostly align with predictions] rather then those with an agenda.

Quote

I have seen a lot of predictions which have turned out false. These failed predictions immediately invalidate whichever models were used to make them. For some reason the models are kept anonymous after each failed prediction.

Scientific models are improved upon and have their zones of applicability extended, [rather then invalidated] all the time, as more intensive observations and/or experiments dictate.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but scientific climate models can go back as far as when the seasons were eventually established...you know, it get's colder in Winter then Summer, or the closer to the Equator one is, the hotter the climate is and even sees the dismissal of any meaningful Winter. Other models are probably based on the Earth's Chandler wobble and precession. We know that green house gasses tend to trap heat which will lead to climate change....there are many other variables such as the amount of ice. These are facts.

Also I learnt a long time ago, that weather is not the same as climate.  

You have had a few whinges so far re how you are being treated. One could say that you appear rather sensitive, which leads to the next question, sensitive for what reasons?

Do you deny climate change is happening?

Do you accept that civilisation has added to the build up of green house gases?

You seem to be arguing the toss about trivialities and trying with all the guile you can muster, to denigrate the science of climate change, and probably as an extension, other areas also.

I said it before and I'll say it again, even if there is doubt over scientific modeling of climate change, it is better to err on the side of caution...at least for our children, and their children, and their children's children. 
 

[NortonH]

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

Let me assure you that we all, all of us including you, except arguments/decisions from authority every day of our lives.

'accept'?

Please only speak for yourself. I do not accept argument from authority as proof. I am happy to take stuff on balance if it is not something I NEED (or want) to assess but when I decide that I DO want to assess it scientifically then I do not accept authority as evidence.

The answers I have been given have been instructions to accept argument from authority. They may be sincere but there are NOT scientifically valid.
That is my point. Do YOU accept argument from authority? I guess you have said you do. So really all you are contributing here is to tell me to listen to 'experts'. You do not add any analysis of your own. 

Once again you attempt to guess my motivations and that is another mistake. Politics, religion, mind reading etc are all irrelevant. My arguments here stand or fall on their own merits. As I have said, if i am given a scientifically valid argument I am happy to accept it but that is NOT what is happening. I am being encouraged to accept argument from authority by being told to just accept what 'experts' allegedly claim. Sorry. Not scientific.

I am sure that models are improved upon. But that is because they have been shown to have failed is it not? SO do you agree that a failed prediction means a failed model? It seems you are reluctant to concede any point, no matter how obviously true it is. (Has this now become a personal debate or something??)

Yes we know that GHG trap heat but that is about it. How do people really pretend that this little mechanism is a model for a planets climate?! It is a model for one tiny component. That is all.

"there are many other variables such as the amount of ice."
Yes! MANY! Hundreds at least. How do you really think that these can all be included in model that can accurately predict future climate. Personally, I do not believe it is even remotely possible but I am happy to be proven wrong.

"Also I learnt a long time ago, that weather is not the same as climate.  "

I know. I have heard that many times. It is like a mantra but what is the point?
Are you implying that weather is the only thing that cannot be modelled so anything that is not weather can?? Of course not.
So what exactly is the point you are trying to make with that quip?

I am not sensitive, I am honest. I really do not care what personal insults and sneers people throw at me, I just point out that such things are irrelevant to science and mere distractions in a debate. The motivation behind such sneers is a topic for another thread, not this one.

I do not deny that climate change is happening. I doubt anybody does given that it has been happening for four billion years. Do you perhaps have a more precise question you would like to ask? Perhaps one that could be used as the basis for  a hypothesis.

I believe that we probably have added to the CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. The effects of these on the climate is, in my opinion, impossible to determine to any useful degree of accuracy.

Where do I 'denigrate' the science of climate change? Are you implying that subjecting it to sceptical scrutiny is denigration and somehow wrong?

You finish up again with the precautionary principle (and an emotive appeal for 'the children'). Once again I will point out that if you cannot accurately determine the risk matrix then you do not even know which side is the side of caution. That is not climate science, that is basic logic.

Edited February 26, 2018 by NortonH

[koti]

44 minutes ago, NortonH said:

'accept'?

Please only speak for yourself. I do not accept argument from authority as proof. I am happy to take stuff on balance if it is not something I NEED (or want) to assess but when I decide that I DO want to assess it scientifically then I do not accept authority as evidence.

The answers I have been given have been instructions to accept argument from authority. They may be sincere but there are NOT scientifically valid.
That is my point. Do YOU accept argument from authority? I guess you have said you do. So really all you are contributing here is to tell me to listen to 'experts'. You do not add any analysis of your own. 

Once again you attempt to guess my motivations and that is another mistake. Politics, religion, mind reading etc are all irrelevant. My arguments here stand or fall on their own merits. As I have said, if i am given a scientifically valid argument I am happy to accept it but that is NOT what is happening. I am being encouraged to accept argument from authority by being told to just accept what 'experts' allegedly claim. Sorry. Not scientific.

I am sure that models are improved upon. But that is because they have been shown to have failed is it not? SO do you agree that a failed prediction means a failed model? It seems you are reluctant to concede any point, no matter how obviously true it is. (Has this now become a personal debate or something??)

Yes we know that GHG trap heat but that is about it. How do people really pretend that this little mechanism is a model for a planets climate?! It is a model for one tiny component. That is all.

"there are many other variables such as the amount of ice."
Yes! MANY! Hundreds at least. How do you really think that these can all be included in model that can accurately predict future climate. Personally, I do not believe it is even remotely possible but I am happy to be proven wrong.

"Also I learnt a long time ago, that weather is not the same as climate.  "

I know. I have heard that many times. It is like a mantra but what is the point?
Are you implying that weather is the only thing that cannot be modelled so anything that is not weather can?? Of course not.
So what exactly is the point you are trying to make with that quip?

I am not sensitive, I am honest. I really do not care what personal insults and sneers people throw at me, I just point out that such things are irrelevant to science and mere distractions in a debate. The motivation behind such sneers is a topic for another thread, not this one.

I do not deny that climate change is happening. I doubt anybody does given that it has been happening for four billion years. Do you perhaps have a more precise question you would like to ask? Perhaps one that could be used as the basis for  a hypothesis.

I believe that we probably have added to the CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. The effects of these on the climate is, in my opinion, impossible to determine to any useful degree of accuracy.

Where do I 'denigrate' the science of climate change? Are you implying that subjecting it to sceptical scrutiny is denigration and somehow wrong?

You finish up again with the precautionary principle (and an emotive appeal for 'the children'). Once again I will point out that if you cannot accurately determine the risk matrix then you do not even know which side is the side of caution. That is not climate science, that is basic logic.

You are clearly a witty and knowledgeable guy Norton and you know how to convey your thoughts coherently and logically with proper written language. This implies that a widely accepted scientific fact backed by mountains of evidence that humanity is contributing to the CO2 should not present any doubt in your mind yet you state that we „probably have added to the CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere” This along with the high school project story presents suspicions that you’re a climate conspiracy theorist with an agenda. If you’re honest like you state you are and your mind is agenda free, please convince us of that. And please make it your priority in your next posts... you’re new here, we don’t know you, do us the courtesy. 

Edited February 27, 2018 by koti

[NortonH]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

9 minutes ago, koti said:

 

 

Thankyou for your reply Koti.
I stated above that I will not be commenting on things which are irrelevant to the debate. SO I will not be spending time trying to convince you of anything about myself.

We know we have burnt loads of fossil fuels the reason I say that we are 'probably' the cause of the increase in CO2 levels over the past 200 years is because at this stage we have no credible model to tell us precisely how much CO2 is expelled and absorbed by the oceans. 
It is quite possible that under different circumstances if the oceans were in an absorbing phase they could have disolved all our CO2 emissions. It is also possible that they could expel CO2 and add to the current increase.
On balance I am reasonable sure that our CO2 has raised the levels but since we have no idea what effect that will have it does not really matter. 

You are welcome to speculate about me and my motives but it is all irrelevant to the debate. As I said, my arguments here stand or fall on their own merits.
 

(sorry for the weird quote problem. I still have not got the hang of it)

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

'accept'?

Please only speak for yourself. I do not accept argument from authority as proof. I am happy to take stuff on balance if it is not something I NEED (or want) to assess but when I decide that I DO want to assess it scientifically then I do not accept authority as evidence

That's OK with me.....What you personally accept is of no real concern to the real scientific world out there. I see it as I have inferred previously. Do you have a beef or an agenda or similar?

 

Quote

The answers I have been given have been instructions to accept argument from authority. They may be sincere but there are NOT scientifically valid.

Of course they are scientifically valid. If you prefer denial or speudoscience, that's your problem.

Quote

That is my point. Do YOU accept argument from authority? I guess you have said you do. So really all you are contributing here is to tell me to listen to 'experts'. You do not add any analysis of your own. 

Like I said, I,m an amateur at this, although I have done plenty of reading...authoritive, reputable reading of course!

 

Quote

Once again you attempt to guess my motivations and that is another mistake. Politics, religion, mind reading etc are all irrelevant. My arguments here stand or fall on their own merits. As I have said, if i am given a scientifically valid argument I am happy to accept it but that is NOT what is happening. I am being encouraged to accept argument from authority by being told to just accept what 'experts' allegedly claim. Sorry. Not scientific.

If your goal is to make people believe that, then from the reaction/s, I believe you have failed.

Quote

I am sure that models are improved upon. But that is because they have been shown to have failed is it not? SO do you agree that a failed prediction means a failed model? It seems you are reluctant to concede any point, no matter how obviously true it is. (Has this now become a personal debate or something??)

Don't be silly. The scientific methodology, which you seem to want people to believe you are upholding, entails models being improved upon, modified and/or scrapped, as observations and technical equipment improves. Personal?? Not in the least, at least on my part...But hey, just a suggestion, if you truly believe what you are trying to get the rest of us to believe on this forum, then why not write up an appropriate scientific paper for professional peer review? Ooops, that would be using that dirty authoritive aspect again though!

 

Quote

Yes we know that GHG trap heat but that is about it. How do people really pretend that this little mechanism is a model for a planets climate?! It is a model for one tiny component. That is all.

No, it is obviously used in conjunction with many other aspects.

Quote

"there are many other variables such as the amount of ice."
Yes! MANY! Hundreds at least. How do you really think that these can all be included in model that can accurately predict future climate. Personally, I do not believe it is even remotely possible but I am happy to be proven wrong.

Science and the scientific methodology in general does not deal in proofs, for obvious reasons. Every model is up for imporvement and/or modification, although I believe its safe to say that the theory of evolution is an exceptance to that rule of thumb...That is 100% certain.

 

Quote

 

"Also I learnt a long time ago, that weather is not the same as climate.  "

I know. I have heard that many times. It is like a mantra but what is the point?
Are you implying that weather is the only thing that cannot be modelled so anything that is not weather can?? Of course not.
So what exactly is the point you are trying to make with that quip?

 

Just that you did seem confused in that regard.

 

Quote

I am not sensitive, I am honest. I really do not care what personal insults and sneers people throw at me, I just point out that such things are irrelevant to science and mere distractions in a debate. The motivation behind such sneers is a topic for another thread, not this one.

I really believe you need to get back to what the scientific method really entails, as per at least two points so far you have seemed to be astray on.

Quote

I do not deny that climate change is happening. I doubt anybody does given that it has been happening for four billion years. Do you perhaps have a more precise question you would like to ask? Perhaps one that could be used as the basis for  a hypothesis.

We are speaking of human induced climate change.

 

Quote

I believe that we probably have added to the CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. The effects of these on the climate is, in my opinion, impossible to determine to any useful degree of accuracy.

That's your opinion. Climate scientists in the main disagree with you.

 

Quote

Where do I 'denigrate' the science of climate change? Are you implying that subjecting it to sceptical scrutiny is denigration and somehow wrong?

What scrutiny? Are you qualified to judge the professional known experts in this field? 

 

Quote

You finish up again with the precautionary principle (and an emotive appeal for 'the children'). Once again I will point out that if you cannot accurately determine the risk matrix then you do not even know which side is the side of caution. That is not climate science, that is basic logic.

The risk factor has been determined. If there was/is any doubt, most concerned, caring people would agree we err on the side of caution. I don't believe in the "stuff you Jack, I'm alright' attitude.

26 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I stated above that I will not be commenting on things which are irrelevant to the debate. SO I will not be spending time trying to convince you of anything about myself.

You are welcome to speculate about me and my motives but it is all irrelevant to the debate. As I said, my arguments here stand or fall on their own merits.

  I believe that answers the question.

ps: Have you watched the "Chasing Ice" doco yet?? here is a short clip...

or here is the whole video, around 1hr 40 minutes long and certainly far more viewable on dvd.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by beecee

[NortonH]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Of course they are scientifically valid. If you prefer denial or speudoscience, that's your problem.

What 'speudoscience'?

Anyway, thank you for your answers. I find it odd that on a forum named "Science Forums" some people advocate for junking the scientific method and accepting the fallacy of argument from authority but that is your prerogative.

Quote

 If your goal is to make people believe that, then from the reaction/s, I believe you have failed.

Sorry. Not clear what you are referring to. My goal is to present an argument and debate it. I do not care what people accept. I only care what counter arguments are made.

Quote

if you truly believe what you are trying to get the rest of us to believe on this forum

I believe in the scientific method. Is that what you mean? I am still unsure what it is you are referring to. Can you please be a bit more specific?

YOu have not explained what you mean by "weather is not climate". Please explain. What is the relevant difference that you are trying to highlight?
I am not confused about that so I think you are misunderstading something.

 

Quote

really believe you need to get back to what the scientific method really entails, as per at least two points so far you have seemed to be astray on.

Which two points do you mean? You are being rather vague and ambiguous. I will repeat that it is odd that you are happy to junk the SM over the question of argument from authority so I do not think that I am the one who misunderstands the SM.

Quote

We are speaking of human induced climate change.

A bit less vague but still lacking any useful hypothesis. Can you propose something like a hypothesis that can be tested? At this stage it is clear that everything we do affects the climate. But to what extent? If i but a single Mars Bar I 'affect' the economy. Sorry, but science needs a bit less abiguity to be useful.

If you say that climate scientists disagree with my claim that we cannot know the effects of ading CO2 then that brings us right back to the models they are using to 'know' the effects and whether and how they can be assessed.

The scrutiny I talk about is the scrutiny that I want to subject the models to when they are made available. Please answer my original question - HOW am I denigrating climate science?

Quote

"Are you qualified to judge the professional known experts in this field? "

Yes. If their predictions fail then their models are wrong.

Quote

The risk factor has been determined. If there was/is any doubt, most concerned, caring people would agree we err on the side of caution. I don't believe in the "stuff you Jack, I'm alright' attitude.

How has it been determined? It cannot be determined without a usefully accurate quantitative model. 
As i said before, until you have a risk matrix you do not know which side is the side of caution. Your next line is just emotive irrelevance. Why do you not just deal with the logic of the argument rather than emoting? If i am not convinced of a model I cannot know which side is caution. Neither can you.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I know that I am willing to accept that the assessments of the validity of climate science by eminent scientists within the worlds most prestigious and scientifically conservative institutions like the US National Academy of sciences on trust. That is not a matter of faith but of trust. I have trust - not faith - in the systems, institutions and methodologies and by default and in the absence of credible scientific doubt - which I don't believe NortonH has provided - the science based conclusions of experts working within those systems and institutions should be taken seriously. It is exactly the right way of it that those conclusions be accepted as the default position, even by other scientists who may both have the expertise and resources to genuinely seek to review and critique those conclusions; they can submit their criticisms and alternative conclusions - which, if substantive, will be welcomed and disseminated for reviewed and critiqued in turn as science circles closer to what is actually true.

Norton is not "just asking legitimate questions", he is refusing to accept the answers he gets and that others have gotten before him to essentially the same questions. None of the questions are new or have gone unanswered. I see spurious appeals to purity of scientific methods and the importance of ongoing, active scepticism concealing a lack of willingness to accept the use of scientific methods that don't fit his narrow preconceptions along with unwillingness to actively apply scepticism to them.  I am not prepared to accept NortonH as having any kind of relevant expertise or special insight - none is evident.  Goodbye NortonH.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Ken Fabian

[NortonH]

9 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I know that I am willing to accept that the assessments of the validity of climate science by eminent scientists within the worlds most prestigious and scientifically conservative institutions like the US National Academy of sciences on trust. That is not a matter of faith but of trust. I have trust - not faith - in the systems, institutions and methodologies and by default and in the absence of credible scientific doubt - which I don't believe NortonH has provided - the science based conclusions of experts working within those systems and institutions should be taken seriously. It is exactly the right way of it that those conclusions be accepted as the default position, even by other scientists who may both have the expertise and resources to genuinely seek to review and critique those conclusions; they can submit their criticisms and alternative conclusions - which, if substantive, will be welcomed and disseminated for reviewed and critiqued in turn as science circles closer to what is actually true.

Norton is not "just asking legitimate questions", he is refusing to accept the answers he gets and that others have gotten before him. None of the questions are new or have gone unanswered. I see spurious appeals to purity of scientific methods and the importance of ongoing, active scepticism concealing a lack of willingness to accept the use of scientific methods that don't fit his narrow preconceptions and unwillingness to actively apply scepticism to them.  I am not prepared to accept NortonH as having any kind of relevant expertise or special insight.  Goodbye NortonH.

 

Thank you for your reply Ken.
I really do not see the point of trying to distinguish between 'trust' and 'faith'. Neither is relevant to science.
All you have done is restate the surprisingly popular position that NortonH should just accept argument from authority and stop questioning experts.
Sorry. That is not scientific and I am surprised i have to keep pointing this out.

I am asking legitimate questions regarding existence and validity of models and i am being told that I have no need to actually scrutinize them or even see them, I should just accept what the 'experts' say. 
Please tell me exactly what scientific method I am NOT accepting. Can you do that?

Quote

I am not prepared to accept NortonH as having any kind of relevant expertise or special insight.

I do not ask you to. I am NOT the one who is arguing from authority, remember.
 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

What 'speudoscience'?

Your nonsense in [1] asking for proof and not knowing that no scientific theory is "proven" other then the theory of evolution as I'm sure you will agree.... and [2] the scientific methodology entails models continually being improved on, modified or just plain rejected.

Quote

Anyway, thank you for your answers. I find it odd that on a forum named "Science Forums" some people advocate for junking the scientific method and accepting the fallacy of argument from authority but that is your prerogative.

Argument from authority is only really a fallacy and invalid, when one uses some notable authoritarian not a authority on the discipline concerned. Of course you reject that against your own non authortiarian, anti scientific methodology position. I quote authority, involved professionally and credentially  within the discipline under discussion.

 

Quote

Sorry. Not clear what you are referring to. My goal is to present an argument and debate it. I do not care what people accept. I only care what counter arguments are made.

You reject all counter arguments as well as all scientific models no matter how valid, as obviously it fails to align with whatever preconceived notions you have.

Quote

I believe in the scientific method. Is that what you mean? I am still unsure what it is you are referring to. Can you please be a bit more specific?

The two points I made show you are ignorant of the scientific method.

Quote

YOu have not explained what you mean by "weather is not climate". Please explain. What is the relevant difference that you are trying to highlight?
I am not confused about that so I think you are misunderstading something.

Weather of course refers to short term atmospheric conditions: Climate refers to the general weather over long periods, and which I described to you previously and which you seem to have ignored, along with the Chasing Ice doco. Climate modelling of course being related to a person's position on the globe, time of year, Chandler Wobble, and precession.

So far they have reasonably stood the test of time, although the increasing build up of extreme weather events, ice melt, GHG's etc etc etc all point to climate change.

Quote

Which two points do you mean? You are being rather vague and ambiguous. I will repeat that it is odd that you are happy to junk the SM over the question of argument from authority so I do not think that I am the one who misunderstands the SM.

Two points already mentioned along with your arguing from authority gaff.

Quote

A bit less vague but still lacking any useful hypothesis. Can you propose something like a hypothesis that can be tested? At this stage it is clear that everything we do affects the climate. But to what extent? If i but a single Mars Bar I 'affect' the economy. Sorry, but science needs a bit less abiguity to be useful.

Besides what I have already mentioned, no, as I am not a professional as obviously you are not.

Quote

If you say that climate scientists disagree with my claim that we cannot know the effects of ading CO2 then that brings us right back to the models they are using to 'know' the effects and whether and how they can be assessed.

Yep, and I certainly prefer the professional authoritive position, over any position taken by any Tom, Dick or Harry on a public science forum.

Quote

The scrutiny I talk about is the scrutiny that I want to subject the models to when they are made available. Please answer my original question - HOW am I denigrating climate science?

You have rejected all answers so far, from your non authoritive and unknown position,  made on a public forum open to anyone. Again, as an amateur I find your position far from reliable and verging on fanatical in fact.

Quote

Yes. If their predictions fail then their models are wrong.

If their predictions fail then yes their models are wrong, and the scientific methodology continues with further impartial observations.

Quote

How has it been determined? It cannot be determined without a usefully accurate quantitative model. 

please refer back to past posts of mine today.

Quote

As i said before, until you have a risk matrix you do not know which side is the side of caution. Your next line is just emotive irrelevance. Why do you not just deal with the logic of the argument rather than emoting? If i am not convinced of a model I cannot know which side is caution. Neither can you.

Rubbish. Either human induced climate change is going to drastically affect the lives of millions if not billions of people, or it is not. That's the decision and whether you take the "stuff you Jack" approach, or the more responsible taking action approach with regards to the future generations you so blithely discard.

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

I really do not see the point of trying to distinguish between 'trust' and 'faith'. Neither is relevant to science.
All you have done is restate the surprisingly popular position that NortonH should just accept argument from authority and stop questioning experts.
Sorry. That is not scientific and I am surprised i have to keep pointing this out.
I do not ask you to. I am NOT the one who is arguing from authority, remember.

What is not scientific and invalid, is the problem that seems to fit with you in not wanting an answer,  and dancing, side-stepping and making excuses re authority, when the problem seems to be a preconceived agenda you have.

Edited February 27, 2018 by beecee

[NortonH]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your nonsense in [1] asking for proof and not knowing that no scientific theory is "proven" other then the theory of evolution as I'm sure you will agree.... and [2] the scientific methodology entails models continually being improved on, modified or just plain rejected.

When was Einsteins equation for relativity last changed?
I have agreed that models change but you are still refusing to admit that they are changed when they are shown to have made a false prediction.
So are the models we have now correct? If so then there will be no more and so I can see them finally. If not, then why are we trusting predictions made from them?

Quote

Argument from authority is only really a fallacy and invalid, when one uses some notable authoritarian not a authority on the discipline concerned.

I had not heard that new rule. When was it added to the scientific method? Or are you just making it up as you go?

Argument from authority is a fallacy.

So far the only counter argument has been from authority and, yes, I reject that.

Quote

all scientific models no matter how valid,

Please show me these models and their falsification criteria. You have not done so. You talk about them but never produce them.

Regarding weather and climate- do you plan to give us any quantities to work with or are 'long' and 'short' adequate for you? Real science requires Quantitative Models.
In any case both climate and weather are chaotic, non-linear and appear to be stochastic over all time scales so I really do not see any point in your distinction. I guess you consider radio waves, visible light and x-rays to be completely unrelated phenomena.

OK. So you admit you cannot propose anything that can be used as a testable hypothesis. Thank you for your honesty. SO we have nothing. YOu cannot even tell me what hypothesis your experts have convinced you to believe!

Again we get to the point where you profess your belief in experts and models that you have never seen. That is not science.

Subjecting a hypothesis to sceptical scrutiny is not denigration, it is science.
If people feel insulted that I do not take their word for something because i want evidence instead then that is their problem. They should study the scientific method. I am doing what is required.
I have rejected answers which are contrary to the SM. eg Authority arguments.

I have referred back to your posts and there is still the problem that without a usefully accurate model there can be no risk matrix for your 'caution' argument.

We (including you) have no way of predicting future climate without reliable models. Until you can produce those your risk matrix is pure speculation and for your it seems very emotional. This is the third time you have said that I am being irresponsible simply because I refuse to accept something that you cannot even state as a hypothesis, let alone prove to any degree of credibility.
I am not sure why you think you are doing science. All you have is faith.

[koti]

All that NortonH is conveying in this thread so far is that not all crackpots are unbearably asinine which is valuable insight on crackpots.

Edited February 27, 2018 by koti

[NortonH]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

All that NortonH is conveying in this thread so far is that not all crackpots are unbearably asinine which is valuable insight on crackpots.

Then perhaps you can refute what I write. 

It seems odd that a forum called Science Forums is happy to accept argument from authority and other fallacies but not happy with someone applying the scientific method.

 

4 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Do you want emissions reductions efforts stopped, limited or delayed while you wait for climate science to provide conclusions that can be accepted by you?

Until we have a credible model to tell us the effects of actions there is no point undertaking any such actions. It makes as much sense as shuffling an already shuffled deck of cards in the hope of improving it somehow.

Show me a credible model and we can discuss the actions we should take.

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, NortonH said:

When was Einsteins equation for relativity last changed?
I have agreed that models change but you are still refusing to admit that they are changed when they are shown to have made a false prediction.
So are the models we have now correct? If so then there will be no more and so I can see them finally. If not, then why are we trusting predictions made from them?

 

Your rather incorrect inference has already been answered. Just because Einsteins equations of GR have not been changed, does not mean that they never will be changed.

Although of course the longer a theory such as GR stands up to observations and keeps making successful predictions, the more certain it does become. 

Yes the models we have now are correct, but if shown by further observations to be lacking, or require modification, then it will be added to and/or modified. I thought you claim to know the scientific method?

 

Quote

I had not heard that new rule. When was it added to the scientific method? Or are you just making it up as you go?

You need to be more careful in what you claim other people are saying. I did not say that was part of the scientific method you appear ignorant of....I listed, [1] you claiming/asking for proof, and [2] your rather weird interpretation of why a scientific theory is just that and can be updated.

 

Quote

Argument from authority is a fallacy.

Only when that Authority is not credentialled in the relevant discipline. We all, you and I included, use authority when needed.

Quote

So far the only counter argument has been from authority and, yes, I reject that.

Reject all you like. Just as most on this forum are rejecting your own non authoritive, uncredentialled views on climate change.

 

Quote

Please show me these models and their falsification criteria. You have not done so. You talk about them but never produce them.

Again, your reading and/or interpretation seems questionable. We have climate models that differentiate Summer and Winter, or where one is positioned, and of course the two links I have given and the "Chasing Ice" video you seem to ignore.  

Quote

Regarding weather and climate- do you plan to give us any quantities to work with or are 'long' and 'short' adequate for you? Real science requires Quantitative Models.
In any case both climate and weather are chaotic, non-linear and appear to be stochastic over all time scales so I really do not see any point in your distinction. I guess you consider radio waves, visible light and x-rays to be completely unrelated phenomena.

I'm not  a scientist, neither are you...I do not have any preconceived hidden agenda...you appear to have. And of course your raising of the EMS has nothing at all to do with climate change models, and appears to be another ploy.

Quote

OK. So you admit you cannot propose anything that can be used as a testable hypothesis. Thank you for your honesty. SO we have nothing. YOu cannot even tell me what hypothesis your experts have convinced you to believe!

I have given you three links...read and learn. I cannot return your honest compliment I'm afraid.

 

Quote

Again we get to the point where you profess your belief in experts and models that you have never seen. That is not science.

More to the point, I actually reject your apparent agenda laden crusade against climate change which is scientifically validated.

 

Quote

Subjecting a hypothesis to sceptical scrutiny is not denigration, it is science.
If people feel insulted that I do not take their word for something because i want evidence instead then that is their problem. They should study the scientific method. I am doing what is required.

Placing yourself on a pedestal and claiming people are insulted by your unsupported nonsense on a public forum, is really funny. What do you believe you are changing? Why not do as I suggested if you feel the scientific world is wrong and submit a paper? Or will you now claim potential bias? or incalcitrance by those that will probably judge that paper as it should be.

Quote

I have rejected answers which are contrary to the SM. eg Authority arguments.

You have rejected all reasonable answers to your questions, ignored at least three links, and then claim all on this forum are insulting you. That's a mighty tall pedestal you are on!

Quote

 

I have referred back to your posts and there is still the problem that without a usefully accurate model there can be no risk matrix for your 'caution' argument.

We (including you) have no way of predicting future climate without reliable models. Until you can produce those your risk matrix is pure speculation and for your it seems very emotional. This is the third time you have said that I am being irresponsible simply because I refuse to accept something that you cannot even state as a hypothesis, let alone prove to any degree of credibility.
I am not sure why you think you are doing science. All you have is faith.

 

The science is there and obvious to any reasonable person. Climate change, human induced exists...climate models exist and both have been shown to you, while you sit back and blithely reject any and all answers and links, under that false "authority" nonsense.

Let me get to the point...what is your agenda? Oh that's right...its not up for discussion is it. 

You would rather sit there and make unsupported, uncredentially, unauthoritive claims, and then claim authoritive claims are a fallacy and invalid.  You really expect people to not to see through your facade and agenda?

[Essay]

55 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Argument from authority is only really a fallacy and invalid, when one uses some notable authoritarian not a authority on the discipline concerned. Of course you reject that against your own non authortiarian, anti scientific methodology position. I quote authority, involved professionally and credentially  within the discipline under discussion.

I had not heard that new rule. When was it added to the scientific method? Or are you just making it up as you go?

Argument from authority is a fallacy.

So far the only counter argument has been from authority and, yes, I reject that.

You seem to be confusing the authority of the scientific method with the authority of individuals or institutions.

The whole idea of science is based on learning from those who have gone before (and then been confirmed, or at least not falsified).  Their "authority" comes from the reproducible results, verifiable observations, and explanatory/predictive power of their efforts ...rather than from their personality or position or preferences.

~

p.s.  If you are not familiar with the phrase, 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' here is a quick snippet from the internet:

Quote

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/268025.html

1. What's the meaning of the phrase 'Standing on the shoulders of giants'?. Using the understanding gained by major thinkers who have gone before in order to make intellectual progress.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Essay
italicized quote

[NortonH]

You have no idea what I have inferred. You need to look that word up in the dictionary because I do not believe you can read minds. 
The point is that they have stood for 100 years and have never been falsified.

So you are saying that the models we have now are correct! That is a big call. 
So can you now show me one so that I can scrutinise it because i am very sceptical that anyone can model the climate of the planet, but I am willing to take a look at your model.

You claimed that some kind of argument from authority is scientific. It is NOT.
You were making stuff up on the fly.

Here you go again:

Quote

Only when that Authority is not credentialled in the relevant discipline

. 

Please tell me where I can find that rule. 
(Argument from authority is a fallacy.)

 

Quote

Just as most on this forum are rejecting your own non authoritive, uncredentialled views on climate change

Really? Most of the forum reject my view?
1. What IS the view I am putting forward? (It is that the SM should be applied)
2. Are you now adding argument from popularity to your list of fallacies?

Chasing Ice is a lovely little video, it is not a quantitative model and it does not indicate where i might find one.

If you say you are not a scientist I believe you. You have no idea who I am or what I am.
You cannot read minds and there is no point speculating about 'agendas' etc. As I have said, all that matters is what argument I write here.

The point about the EMS is to give you the concept of a spectrum rather than a discrete divide.

I have seen your links they DO NOT show me any models. They discuss models but that is all.

Quote

More to the point, I actually reject your apparent agenda laden crusade against climate change which is scientifically validated.

Once again you are getting emotional and speculating about irrelevant things. If you cannot deal with the argument I make on this forum then the 'agenda laden crusade' is rather irrelevant, isn't it?

I am not placing myself on any pedestal. I am the one arguing AGAINST argument from authority, remember?
I get the impression that people are insulted from the fact that you have become so emotional and the fact that YOU YOURSELF have told me that I am insulting and denigrating science by applying the SM. 
So, am I?

Again, all your answers are based on scientific fallacies and so I will always reject them. Why can you not produce an argument which is NOT based on a fallacy?

Quote

The science is there and obvious to any reasonable person. Climate change, human induced exists...climate models exist and both have been shown to you, while you sit back and blithely reject any and all answers and links, under that false "authority" nonsense.

If it is so obvious why can you not make a scientific case? You keep declaring that 'human induced climate change' exists but you cannot even define it. If I move one molecule of gas I change the climate. You need a more precise definition than 'change'. That is why I asked you to define some kind of hypothesis. eg a measurable rate of change which has not been recorded before in history. Something like that. But so far you have not been able to come up with anything!
Why don't you watch your own videos? I looked last night and could not find any statement of a hypothesis but maybe i missed it. You have great faith in the videos so perhaps they will help you answer my questions.

What is my agenda? I have told you several times - my 'agenda' is to apply the SM to climate science.

I have not made any authoritative claims. I am the one arguing AGAINST argument from authority, remember?

21 minutes ago, Essay said:

You seem to be confusing the authority of the scientific method with the authority of individuals or institutions.

The whole idea of science is based on learning from those who have gone before (and then been confirmed, or at least not falsified).  Their "authority" comes from the reproducible results, verifiable observations, and explanatory/predictive power of their efforts ...rather than from their personality or position or preferences.

~

p.s.  If you are not familiar with the phrase, 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' here is a quick snippet from the internet:

 

Is that comment addressed to me or to BeeCee?

If it is to BeeCee then I would agree.

Otherwise I will just restate - argument based on the word of someone rather than the evidence is a fallacy.

[Essay]

31 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Is that comment addressed to me or to BeeCee?

If it is to BeeCee then I would agree.

Otherwise I will just restate - argument based on the word of someone rather than the evidence is a fallacy.

No, it is addressed to you, as the quote function shows, based on your answer to beecee.  

And you still seem to confuse the authority of accumulated wisdom, experience, and validation with personal and political authority.

Do you not use medicine and technology before personally understanding and testing it yourself, or do you listen to society's accumulated expertise?

~

[NortonH]

3 minutes ago, Essay said:

No, it is addressed to you, as the quote function shows, based on your answer to beecee.  

And you still seem to confuse the authority of accumulated wisdom, experience, and validation with personal and political authority.

Do you not use medicine and technology before personally understanding and testing it yourself, or do you listen to society's accumulated expertise?

~

 

OK well in that case, Essay, I will explain why you are wrong.

If the authority is based on EVIDENCE then there needs to be no pronouncement of authority. The evidence speaks for itself.

If there is NOT solid evidence to back up the authority then the vague fuzzy concepts of 'accumulated wisdom', 'experience' etc are worth NOTHING.

I hope this helps.
 

[pavelcherepan]

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

That is my position and I am surprised it is so unpopular here.

It's not your position, I fear, it's your general behaviour that is unpopular. You came with initial premise that you need help with your son's school project and to that regard you have been given a clear advice on what would kind of scientific inquiry would be reasonable to perform for a high-schooler. Instead of following a good advice from studiot and strange you decided to derail discussion into that of climate change denial, which appears to have been your goal all along. People don't like these kind of stunts. 

In addition to those, you have been provided clear examples of climate models. You're free to investigate and scrutinise those to your heart's content, but instead you keep ignoring what information you've been provided, but instead keep pushing with your agenda, which I can only summarise to: "Climate change models can't be trusted, since they are taken for granted on the basis of authority, not independently scrutinised and don't follow scientific methodology"

Good luck with that, but you'll find little sympathy for trickery and misdirection on these forums.

[NortonH]

11 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

It's not your position, I fear, it's your general behaviour that is unpopular. You came with initial premise that you need help with your son's school project and to that regard you have been given a clear advice on what would kind of scientific inquiry would be reasonable to perform for a high-schooler. Instead of following a good advice from studiot and strange you decided to derail discussion into that of climate change denial, which appears to have been your goal all along. People don't like these kind of stunts. 

In addition to those, you have been provided clear examples of climate models. You're free to investigate and scrutinise those to your heart's content, but instead you keep ignoring what information you've been provided, but instead keep pushing with your agenda, which I can only summarise to: "Climate change models can't be trusted, since they are taken for granted on the basis of authority, not independently scrutinised and don't follow scientific methodology"

Good luck with that, but you'll find little sympathy for trickery and misdirection on these forums.

 

Pavel, my dear turtle, the 'premise' was just a bit of background. It is irrelevant to what is being discussed. As I have said many times all that matters what I write on this forum. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits, nothing else.

The point is that the advice that I have been given is contrary to the scientific method and I find this rather surprising.
I have not derailed any debate and I am sorry to say that the advice of studiot and strange contained the common fallacy of argument from authority. I know enough to know that that is NOT valid.

Do you disagree? Are you also going to tell me that i should accept argument from authority?

And this claim of climate change denial - where have I done that? I have stated several times that the climate changes and has been doing so for billions of years.
Please actually read the thread before commenting.

I have NOT been given clear examples of climate models. Show me one. I have been given links to articles discussing them. All I have asked for is something to which I can apply sceptical analysis along with its falsification criteria.
Have you see any of these recently?

If you think that asking relevant questions and applying the SM is 'trickery' then all I can say is that I am surprised.
Where have I misdirected anyone? I have been quite open and upfront all the way.
Again, I suggest you actually read the entire thread before commenting.
 

Edited February 27, 2018 by NortonH

[pavelcherepan]

12 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Pavel, my dear turtle

Please behave yourself.

13 minutes ago, NortonH said:

It is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

It is relevant, since the help and advice you've been given in abundance are based on that initial premise. If you'd created a topic on discussing validity of climate modelling, you'd have gotten very different approach from forum members.

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I have NOT been given clear examples of climate models. Show me one.

That is easy. 

1) CESM model with configurations, release notes and experimental information: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/scientifically-supported.html

2) EdGCM model with all relevant information on the workings of said model: http://edgcm.columbia.edu/support2/supplemental/

3) CM2.x climate models. I've linked the page with scientific publications providing the basis for the model: http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/references/

 

18 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I have been quite open and upfront all the way.

If what you want to discuss is the validity of climate models, creating a topic "Validity of climate models" would have been an open and upfront way. What you are currently doing is not.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

You have no idea what I have inferred.

Same old, same old!  The forum has every idea what you are inferring.

In ignoring the same old repeat with this post, let me sum up your standings so far...

[1] You come here asking for advice re climate models, with the hint of your agenda.

[2] You argue and make excuses re the replies you received about others being snarky and not aligning with the scientific method and a myriad of other unsupported excuses.

[3] You claim to specifically want to stick and argue as per the scientific method, yet have made two so far incredible basic errors.

[4] You reject all valid replies given to you so far.

[5] You reject any and all links to authority that show your premise to be totally wrong.

[6] You hide behind whatever your agenda is, and that is driving you so fanatically on this crusade. [I've often seen this reaction with many God Botherers]

[7] In rejecting any and all authority, you want people to accept the unsupported rhetoric you are engaging in, and the many unsupported claims.

[8] You claim no one has submitted any climate change model, yet say.........

Quote

"I have seen your links they DO NOT show me any models. They discuss models but that is all."

At best this is just an example of extreme contradiction at worst, and/or simply splitting hairs at best.

[9] And finally, you as an amateur have absolutely no credibility in trying to deny the effects of human induced climate change, no matter how many attempts you make to try confuse the issue and muddy the waters.

 

hmmm, at this moment I'm afraid I can't think of a 10th reason, but I'm sure in time it will be revealed.  

[NortonH]

8 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

Please behave yourself.

I have to admit that made me laugh. All the abuse that I have been getting above and you pick me up for my affectionate greeting and tell me to behave myself!

The heading of the topic is clear. I wanted to apply proper SM scrutiny to the subject of climate change. I gave some context but should not have bothered since it seems to have totally distracted everyone.
I would have thought that applying the SM to any subject would be the same no matter who asked. Odd eh?

Thank you for finally posting a link to some models. I will take a look but at first glance i see no falsification criteria but I will dig around and get back to you.'
By the way, have you analysed them at all?

I have been up front. The Scientific Method covers more than just the models, does it not?
I am happy to discuss ALL aspects of the SM as applied to Climate. The models have just been the subject of most of the posts so far because nobody could produce any.
Is your real grudge the fact that I did not give this thread the exact title you wanted? Really?
 

[Essay]

31 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 

OK well in that case, Essay, I will explain why you are wrong.

If the authority is based on EVIDENCE then there needs to be no pronouncement of authority. The evidence speaks for itself.

If there is NOT solid evidence to back up the authority then the vague fuzzy concepts of 'accumulated wisdom', 'experience' etc are worth NOTHING.

I hope this helps.
 

Okay, maybe I should have been more clear.  It is the wisdom to see what the accumulated evidence suggests.  It is the experience to know what evidence is needed, how much evidence is needed, and what evidence is still needed.  And most important, it is the capability to rely upon only well-validated evidence, when consolidating and organizing all the evidence.  That is how an understanding greater than any one person can expect to achieve is realized.

Do you think there is "NOT solid evidence to back up the authority"  of the IPCC or the many scientific and technical organizations around the world?

~

[NortonH]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

Same old, same old!  The forum has every idea what you are inferring.

In ignoring the same old repeat with this post, let me sum up your standings so far...

[1] You come here asking for advice re climate models, with the hint of your agenda.

[2] You argue and make excuses re the replies you received about others being snarky and not aligning with the scientific method and a myriad of other unsupported excuses.

[3] You claim to specifically want to stick and argue as per the scientific method, yet have made two so far incredible basic errors.

[4] You reject all valid replies given to you so far.

[5] You reject any and all links to authority that show your premise to be totally wrong.

[6] You hide behind whatever your agenda is, and that is driving you so fanatically on this crusade. [I've often seen this reaction with many God Botherers]

[7] In rejecting any and all authority, you want people to accept the unsupported rhetoric you are engaging in, and the many unsupported claims.

[8] You claim no one has submitted any climate change model, yet say.........

At best this is just an example of extreme contradiction at worst, and/or simply splitting hairs at best.

[9] And finally, you as an amateur have absolutely no credibility in trying to deny the effects of human induced climate change, no matter how many attempts you make to try confuse the issue and muddy the waters.

 

hmmm, at this moment I'm afraid I can't think of a 10th reason, but I'm sure in time it will be revealed.  

Beecee, please get hold of a dictionary and look up the word 'inferred'.
Unless you are a mind reader you cannot do it.

To summarise - yes, I reject all 'advice' based in fallacies and argument from authority is one such fallacy.

I have not hidden anything. As I have said half a dozen times, all that matters is what I write here.

What 'unsupported claims' have i made? I am not the one arguing from authority, remember?

Your links to various videos and IPCC pdfs are not models. My new turtle friend has finally actually delivered something which I will now investigate.
There is a difference between an IPCC puff peice about their models and actually seeing the models! IS that a hard concept?? I will give you a brochure or a Mercedes... or a Mercedes. Which do you want?
LOL
 

 

2 minutes ago, Essay said:

Okay, maybe I should have been more clear.  It is the wisdom to see what the accumulated evidence suggests.  It is the experience to know what evidence is needed, how much evidence is needed, and what evidence is still needed.  And most important, it is the capability to rely upon only well-validated evidence, when consolidating and organizing all the evidence.  That is how an understanding greater than any one person can expect to achieve is realized.

Do you think there is "NOT solid evidence to back up the authority"  of the IPCC or the many scientific and technical organizations around the world?

~

You can rephrase it as often as you like but it still comes down to the question of whether there is evidence or not. Nothing else matters.

So far, given the many failed predictions, it seems that there are no reliable models. My seagoing friend found some which I am now investigating so I will get back to you.

[pavelcherepan]

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

All the abuse that I have been getting

If you feel like someone is acting towards you in a way that violates forums rules, use report function. 

4 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I will take a look but at first glance i see no falsification criteria but I will dig around and get back to you.'

A model or a theory doesn't have to provide falsification criteria. They can be derived from the model itself. It's only a problem where no falsification is possible.

5 minutes ago, NortonH said:

By the way, have you analysed them at all?

I have absolutely no interest in that. If I did, I would have read relevant papers.

7 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I have been up front. The Scientific Method covers more than just the models, does it not?
I am happy to discuss ALL aspects of the SM as applied to Climate. The models have just been the subject of most of the posts so far because nobody could produce any.
Is your real grudge the fact that I did not give this thread the exact title you wanted? Really?

No you haven't been. You seem like a reasonably literate person, therefore you are probably familiar with Google ( or any search engine of your preference). Typing "climate model" into search bar provides more than enough information that you so crave. I find it unlikely that it didn't appear to you. Therefore, any claims you made that no information had been made available to you are based on a very shaky ground. People don't have to spoon-feed you, some effort from your end is required.