Global warming computer models are very unreliable.

[SkepticLance]

To Aardvark

 

You are not alone. I have been accused of being a global warming denialist by those who cannot be bothered actually reading my posts. I have not been so accused for a while. I suspect this is because, if I say something 1000 times, it finally sinks in!

 

I read a good definition the other day. A genius is someone who only makes the same mistake 7 times. Based on the number of times certain respondents mistake our view points, there are no geniuses here!

[bascule]

That is interesting. Could you elaborate a bit on that?

 

High or low level cloud? Was the cloud cover a feedback result or a forcing in it's own right? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I really would like to know.

 

The model was for thermodynamic effects of clouds on the general circulation of air, based upon studies conducted via satellite measurement (being performed by another group at our University). I don't know the specifics as my job was largely about providing support for people integrating the two different codebases.

 

And as for 'denialism', gosh, what a great word, just slap it on anyone who ever dares to raise any queries about Global Warming and job done! Afterall, if they are a 'denialist' then you don't have to worry about their questions or arguments do you? (Smiley added just for you)

 

Yes, why actually respond to the information being presented you when you can just whine about how no one listens to your ludicrous and patently false accusations against climate science.

 

You've been provided ample information, and ignored it all. Do you wonder why we're calling you a denialist?

[iNow]

You don't even appear to understand what the word 'strawman' means.

 

 

Aardvark has a point. You do tend to over-use the strawman accusation, including using it where it is not appropriate. In this case Aardvark was being ironic rather than raising a serious argument, and your accusation was definitely not appropriate.

My definition of Strawman: To misrepresent the position of others, then argue against that misrepresentation instead of their true position.

 

 

Better is available here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

A straw man argument can be set up in several ways, including:

 

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
   
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
   
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
   
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
   
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can restrict the scope of the opponent's argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion.

 

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

 

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

 

 

 

Okay... gentleman.

 

Since I'm appararent really dumb, misinformed, and don't understand a strawman, how about you show us all precisely where ANYONE has attacked either one of you for suggesting that "human understanding of the Earths climate system is not perfect?"

 

Prove to us that Aardvark has not presented a distorted version of the position of others by giving an exact quote which suggests that ANY SINGLE PERSON is suggesting that our understanding IS perfect...

 

 

How dare you imply that human understanding of the Earths climatic system is not perfect?

 

Distorted, indeed.

[swansont]

So my suggestion of a 'thought police' in Scienceforums, doesn't strike you as obviously not meant to be taken literally?

 

Not after seeing some of the anti-relativity and anti-QM cranks or discussions with creationists. Being earnestly and sincerely accused of censorship is old hat.

 

And as for 'denialism', gosh, what a great word, just slap it on anyone who ever dares to raise any queries about Global Warming and job done! Afterall, if they are a 'denialist' then you don't have to worry about their questions or arguments do you? (Smiley added just for you)

 

Why don't we look at some of those queries? You've accused the IPCC of being political and of scare-mongering, but have provided no specifics when prompted. You've repeatedly implied that the science — not just the reporting of it — has been politicized and can't be trusted, without supporting it. You made a claim about the temperature of the last decade which was incorrect. When called on this, you attempted to dismiss the data by claiming they were unreliable even though the magnitude of the error was too small to make any substantial difference. You used a strawman argument to downgrade global warming from theory to hypothesis, and made a blanket statement that it cannot make verifiable predictions.

 

I don't see any scientific questions being raised.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I did not accuse you of failing to understand what a strawman argument is. I accused you of over-doing the strawman accusations.

 

Sometimes we end up with this kind of argument as a result of genuine lousy communication. In fact, I suspect that a large percentage of these arguments are actually a result of misunderstandings rather than genuine disagreement. When a person puts up a 'strawman' argument, it is probably the result of such a misunderstanding. In those cases, we are better applying a little patience and trying harder to understand each others position.

[iNow]

I accused you of over-doing the strawman accusations.

I simply call it as I see it. If someone is misrepresenting the position of someone else, then either arguing against that misrepresentation or using it to frame some appeal to shame or appeal to ridicule, I have zero qualms stating openly that this is what is occurring, and hence is not logically tenable.

 

While I appreciate what appears to be your attempts to improve matters, and your offering advice about how to apply patience, it was condescending and completely unsolicited and will be treated as such and disregarded.

 

Be well.

[SkepticLance]

it was condescending and completely unsolicited

 

 

Perhaps so, but nevertheless correct.

[Pangloss]

Why are you asking me?

 

You seemed to be saying that Frank's article doesn't dispute GW theory, so I'm just curious why the paper would be considered "controversial" by avowed GW advocates if it doesn't dispute GW theory in any way. Obviously you don't speak for those people, I'm just asking because I seem to have missed (or misunderstood) something here.

 

Perhaps so, but nevertheless correct.

 

Yes it was.

 

This morning I read an article by Dr. Patrick Frank.

 

BTW Lance I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of correcting the name of the author on the first line of the OP. He spells it without an S on the end.

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss

 

I think the reason the paper was called controversial was because it claimed that global circulation models were inaccurate, especially in relation to long term predictions. I suspect that global warming enthusiasts are not happy about that.

 

As to correcting errors. Fine, and thank you. It is much better to notice and correct than to ignore.

[iNow]

I think the reason the paper was called controversial was because it claimed that global circulation models were inaccurate, especially in relation to long term predictions. I suspect that global warming enthusiasts are not happy about that.

1) Who in their right mind is enthusiastic about global warming?

2) What scientist would not be happy about improvements in their models and data?

 

Come off it already, will you?

[Aardvark]

To Aardvark

 

You are not alone. I have been accused of being a global warming denialist by those who cannot be bothered actually reading my posts. I have not been so accused for a while. I suspect this is because, if I say something 1000 times, it finally sinks in!

 

I read a good definition the other day. A genius is someone who only makes the same mistake 7 times. Based on the number of times certain respondents mistake our view points, there are no geniuses here!

 

 

Indeed SkepticLance, i see even after your post that i am accused in this thread of 'whining' and making 'ludicrous and patently false accusations against climate science.' :D:D:D:D All for the temerity to point out the fact that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure and as such its conclusions should be viewed with scepticism. Exactly as is common practice regarding scientific research performed by scientists with links to the tobacco industry.

 

It remains a fact that human understanding of the global climatic system is partial and limited. It also remains a fact that the Global Warming Theory is unable to give any remotely precise verifiable predictions. Apparently, to point out these facts is to be an evil 'denialist' (gosh that sounds really bad, almost like a sexist or a racist! )

 

It's interesting how emotive some people are becoming, demonstrating such a lack of scientific objectivity on this matter. Behaving almost like a religious belief is being attacked, an article of faith questioned rather than a scientific theory subjected to proper scutinity

 

 

Maybe i also need to point out these facts 1000 times and people will start to actually read them! (and on that day pigs will fly and iNoW will understand what a strawman actually is)

[iNow]

 

All for the temerity to point out the fact that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure and as such its conclusions should be viewed with scepticism.

<...>

Apparently, to point out these facts is to be an evil 'denialist' (gosh that sounds really bad, almost like a sexist or a racist! )

 

It's interesting how emotive some people are becoming, demonstrating such a lack of scientific objectivity on this matter. Behaving almost like a religious belief is being attacked, an article of faith questioned rather than a scientific theory subjected to proper scutinity

 

 

Maybe i also need to point out these facts 1000 times and people will start to actually read them! (and on that day pigs will fly and iNoW will understand what a strawman actually is)

 

 

What scientific objections, exactly?

 

 

Let's review every single post you've contributed in this thread, shall we? I have not edited any of them. These are all your full posts:

 

Be careful SkepticLance, any questioning of Global warming will get you in trouble with the Thought police!

 

How dare you imply that human understanding of the Earths climatic system is not perfect?

 

You don't even appear to understand what the word 'strawman' means.

 

Do you ever actually try to make an argument using facts and reason or do you always rely on name calling and labelling?

 

Ah yes, I am the one indulging in name calling! :D

 

 

It does seem to be a habit of yours, name calling and the use of labels to try and shut down discussion. A shame really.

 

So my suggestion of a 'thought police' in Scienceforums, doesn't strike you as obviously not meant to be taken literally?

 

And as for 'denialism', gosh, what a great word, just slap it on anyone who ever dares to raise any queries about Global Warming and job done! Afterall, if they are a 'denialist' then you don't have to worry about their questions or arguments do you? (Smiley added just for you)

 

 

I'm sorry. Tell us all again what scientific objections have you raised? I don't see any.

[swansont]

Indeed SkepticLance, i see even after your post that i am accused in this thread of 'whining' and making 'ludicrous and patently false accusations against climate science.' :D:D:D:D All for the temerity to point out the fact that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure and as such its conclusions should be viewed with scepticism. Exactly as is common practice regarding scientific research performed by scientists with links to the tobacco industry.

 

As I recall, your one example of political pressure was from GW Bush on behalf of the oil industry, a source that would like nothing better than a result of "it's all natural and there's nothing we can do about it." So, how about some concrete examples? Are the results from peer-reviewed journals being corrupted when collated by the IPCC? Any science to present?

[SkepticLance]

iNow said

 

"1) Who in their right mind is enthusiastic about global warming?

2) What scientist would not be happy about improvements in their models and data?

 

Come off it already, will you?"

 

Would you please re-read my post. My actual statement was to the effect that the item was controversial because it said that climate modellers were in error. Not that they loved global warming! Or were unhappy about improvements.

 

I have noticed you, on occasion, over-reacting because I have suggested you were in error. No-one likes being told they are wrong. Dr. Frank says that the climate modellers were wrong - hence the strong reaction against his writings, making them 'controversial'.

[iNow]

My actual statement was to the effect that the item was controversial because it said that climate modellers were in error. Not that they loved global warming! Or were unhappy about improvements.

Well, that's the beauty of using the quote feature on the site. Your words were displayed for context within my post. You said exactly this:

 

 

I think the reason the paper was called controversial was because it claimed that global circulation models were inaccurate, especially in relation to long term predictions. I suspect that global warming enthusiasts are not happy about that.

 

So... I ask again, what exactly is a "global warming enthusiast" and why would anybody be unhappy about improvements in their models and data?

 

You can dance around it all you want. I've quoted you (now twice) word for word.

 

 

I have noticed you, on occasion, over-reacting because I have suggested you were in error.

Examples?

[Aardvark]

What scientific objections, exactly?

 

Let's review every single post you've contributed in this thread, shall we? I have not edited any of them. These are all your full posts:

 

I'm sorry. Tell us all again what scientific objections have you raised? I don't see any.

 

You have a rare talent for completely misunderstanding (deliberately?) other peoples posts

 

Let's see, i make a joke about peoples reactions to SkepticLances post querying the accuracy of computer modelling, and you demand to hear my 'scientific objections'! Objections to what exactly? You want me to make a 'scientific objection' to peoples emotional response to a post by SkepticLance? lol

[iNow]

Let's see, i make a joke about peoples reactions to SkepticLances post querying the accuracy of computer modelling, and you demand to hear my 'scientific objections'! Objections to what exactly? You want me to make a 'scientific objection' to peoples emotional response to a post by SkepticLance? lol

 

Context for my questions was given when I opened my post, where your specific post to which I was responding is shown before any of my own text.

 

 

All for the temerity to point out the fact that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure and as such its conclusions should be viewed with scepticism.

 

<...>

 

Apparently, to point out these facts is to be an evil 'denialist' (gosh that sounds really bad, almost like a sexist or a racist! )

 

It's interesting how emotive some people are becoming, demonstrating such a lack of scientific objectivity on this matter. Behaving almost like a religious belief is being attacked, an article of faith questioned rather than a scientific theory subjected to proper scutinity

 

Your implication being that the reaction to you is for "pointing out facts" and for "subjecting proper scrutiny."

 

 

Let me ask a different way since the last time seems to have gone over your head.

 

Where specifically in this thread have you pointed out facts, and where in this thread have you applied scientific scrutiny?

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

You have quoted me, but I cannot have been clear in my wording, since you do not understand what I meant.

 

When I said global warming enthusiasts were unhappy, I meant they were unhappy at being called wrong. Not because of any perceived improvement. In fact, I seriously doubt they would perceive this paper as an improvement.

 

What is a global warming enthusiast? Someone who swallows the entire global warming dogma without a proper scientific scepticism, and fails to query the parts of global warming dogma that are not based on data. eg. predictions

[iNow]

What is a global warming enthusiast? Someone who swallows the entire global warming dogma without a proper scientific scepticism, and fails to query the parts of global warming dogma that are not based on data.

 

Can you provide even a single example of anyone who does or has done this? Just one.

 

 

Also, where are your examples of this:

I have noticed you [iNow'], on occasion, over-reacting because I have suggested you were in error.

 

My primary skepticism right now is directed squarely on your ridiculous and unsupported rhetoric. I welcome the chance for you to prove me wrong with specific examples.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

An example of someone without sufficient scientific scepticism?

 

Any person contributing to this thread who argues against the proposition that global circulation models are inaccurate an unreliable.

 

You said :

 

"My primary skepticism right now is directed squarely on your ridiculous and unsupported rhetoric. I welcome the chance for you to prove me wrong with specific examples."

 

Naming of names, and giving example of your errors is a good route to personal attacks and generalised nastiness. I will refrain from that type of response.

[iNow]

To iNow

 

An example of someone without sufficient scientific scepticism?

 

Any person contributing to this thread who argues against the proposition that global circulation models are inaccurate an unreliable.

Again. Name one. You seem unable, hence your point seems unfounded. Prove me wrong with something specific, or your suggestion will be proven nothing more than false.

 

 

Naming of names, and giving example of your errors is a good route to personal attacks and generalised nastiness. I will refrain from that type of response.

 

If this were sincere, and if you truly wished to refrain from such generalized personal attacks, you would never have made the comment in the first place, the very comment for which I am requesting specific supporting examples.

 

I take your responses to mean that you are COMPLETELY unable to back up your comments with specific examples, and I would like to call all readers attention to this fact.

 

If you wish to retract your comments, that would be fine. However, if you do not, you need to man up and show specific examples which support your assertions. You cannot go around suggesting things about other members with no supporting examples and expect not to be challenged. You suggested something of me personally and my responses here at SFN, and it's time for you to back it up or shut it up.

 

 

 

 

 

<sigh... too aggressive. let me be more academic>

 

 

Hi SkepticLance!

 

You made this statement, and I disagree.

 

I have noticed you, on occasion, over-reacting because I have suggested you were in error.

 

I can come up with countless examples which show otherwise, indicating that my reactions were the result of your invective and your condescension. I suggest that your perception that I've reacted "due to being proven wrong" are a mischaracterization of the actual situations. Can you please provide a specific example, just one, which exemplifies and supports your assertion that I over-react due to being proven wrong? Without such an example, I cannot see your comment as anything more than a mischaracterization of me and my character.

 

One example, mate. That is all.

Otherwise, be a man, show some integrity, and retract it.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

This line of discussion is getting a bit ridiculous. I used the term 'global warming enthusiast' in order to avoid mentioning names, and just stay general. I am certainly not going to go against that policy and start naming names now. Sadly, this can result in specific people feeling insulted, and lead us into saying things we should not.

 

Let me just say that I am a global warming sceptic (not a global warming denialist), and the opposite of sceptic in this context is enthusiast.

 

Let me also add that, when I mentioned you over-reacting when found to be in error, that was also not meant to be an insult. It was to illustrate a point - that no-one likes to be proven wrong. I do not. You do not. No person on this, or any other thread responds well to be told he/she is wrong, and especially if followed up by strong evidence indicating their error.

 

In this, we are all human. I seem to have insulted you anyway, and I am sorry for that. I am not going to exacerbate the insult by going into details.

[iNow]

Let me also add that, when I mentioned you over-reacting when found to be in error, that was also not meant to be an insult. It was to illustrate a point

 

<...>

 

I am not going to exacerbate the insult by going into details.

 

To substantiate a suggestion is not the same as to exaccerbate it. That's all I've asked you to do, to substantiate your suggestion, and you've repeatedly shown that you cannot.

[JohnB]

@ Bascule. Thanks for that.

[SkepticLance]

On the business of climate model accuracy :

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353844,00.html

 

I quote :

 

"When NASA’s James Hansen sounded the alarm in Congress 20 years ago, he predicted that rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, would drive global temperatures higher by 0.34 degrees Celsius during the 1990s. But surface temperatures increased during that decade by only 0.11 degrees Celsius and lower atmosphere temperatures actually decreased."

 

Obviously the temperature decrease is not an issue here. However, the inaccuracy of the prediction is somewhat typical of what we have seen.

 

Ther NZ Herald newspaper this morning has an editorial item which quotes Sir John Houghton. first chair of the IPCC.

"Unless we announce disaster, no-one will listen."

 

I don't know if he actually said that or not, or if it is official or unofficial policy. However, if it is any kind of policy for the IPCC, then we have to conclude that the organisation is corrupt.