The man don’t give a….

by Gareth on October 20, 2010

Rodney Hide’s warm-up act for the launch of Bob Carter’s new book Climate: The Counter-consensus — a Scientist Speaks in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago took the form of a remarkable speech, now available at the ACT web site. I know that it’s customary on these occasions to be nice to the author, but Rodney seems to have gone just a tad over the top:

Professor Bob Carter has written the best book on the science of human-induced global warning I have read.

 

Par for the course. Hardly likely to say that he preferred Plimer’s book, was he?

It’s a very significant book. It will save countless lives.

It will also save trillions of dollars in resources, natural, human and physical. Precious resources that the human race striving to provide every human being with the means for them to reach their full potential can ill-afford to lose.

In the strange version of reality being explored by Carterist science, everything is upside down.

His book stands in stark contrast to the dry and boring and politicised IPCC tomes. And so in this book Bob Carter rescues both the world and science and what could be a more valuable contribution than that.

Bob rescues the world! And science! Hurrah!

Some truth here, though:

We are easily fooled. That’s why Prof Carter’s work is so important.

Too true, but not perhaps in the way Rodney intended.

Science doesn’t deliver truths down from on high by consensus.

Pardon? If real science doesn’t do consensus, how can Carterist science offer a counter consensus?

I know that if “Climate: The Counter Consensus” had been published two years ago New Zealand would have been spared its wealth-sapping Emissions Trading Scheme.

And much more in the same vein. Risible, if it weren’t coming from an associate minister of education in the New Zealand Government. But it is, and that makes it tragic.

[Super Furry Animals]

{ 136 comments… read them below or add one }

Dappledwater October 20, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Professor Bob Carter has written the best book on the science of human-induced global warning I have read.

So it would also be the worst book too, considering it’s the only book he’s read on global warming.

That picture of Rodney cracks me up every time I see it!.

Risible, if it weren’t coming from an associate minister of education in the New Zealand Government.

Yup, just taking the mickey. Like Gerry Brownlee – Minster of Energy? & Re-sauces.

Scott A. Mandia October 20, 2010 at 11:29 pm

My current favorite analogy comes from Dr. Barry Bickmore’s video series regarding the scientific consensus:

1 out of 33 dentists surveyed say that chewing this gum…

Not a very effective commercial for that gum now is it? Care to chew on Carter’s book anyone?

Gareth October 21, 2010 at 12:21 pm

I do hope there are some reviews in the pipeline… ;-)

John D October 21, 2010 at 12:36 pm

There are currently 3 five star reviews on Amazon

http://amzn.to/bdYEFs

Thomas October 22, 2010 at 12:17 pm

Now that’s significant then isn’t it….Amazon reviews! Cool!

How about peer reviews from people not beholden to the right wing economic theories peddled by the so called “liberal” parties like ACT or its Australian counterpart???

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

His stance on climate science is predetermined by his political affiliations and not by the actual scientific debate.

John D October 22, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Thomas,
You could always write your own one-star Amazon review

Of course, as Sam points out, there’s no need to actually read the book.
It is clearly denialist propaganda put out by right-wing “think tanks”

Make sure you put that in the review, along with your full name

Roger Dewhurst October 23, 2010 at 11:02 am

“How about peer reviews from people not beholden to the right wing economic theories peddled by the so called “liberal” parties like ACT or its Australian counterpart???”

As long as they are not written by crypto-communist academics, schoolteachers, bureaucrats and others pendant on the taxpayers’ nipple.

Bob Bingham October 21, 2010 at 8:38 am

Its a real worry that Hide is a minister. If he can make serious blunders of this type, what else is he doing that is manifestly wrong?

Ken October 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

Can think of nothing he’s done right.

Sam Vilain October 21, 2010 at 12:22 pm

He did a good job of getting rid of crazy right-wing mayors in the Auckland area :-)

Roger Dewhurst October 23, 2010 at 11:04 am

In your view of course the only non-crazies are socialists and others happy to leach off the taxpayer.

Tony October 21, 2010 at 10:53 am

Rodney must be doing something right for to have women literally throwing themselves at his feet, I assume because its the best looking part of him.

Roger Dewhurst October 23, 2010 at 11:05 am

His feet, at least, must look better than yours.

TBwood October 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm

You’re assuming it’s a blunder caused by ignorance/stupidity.

I don’t think it is – rather, I view Hide’s position as a cynical means of attracting/securing votes.

Tom Bennion October 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Looking at the full speech, I found it interesting that he seems to be skeptical due to what he sees as a previous “cry wolf” episode in his youth – he feels betrayed. I take that from this part of the speech:

“It’s fitting that Bob’s book is published by Tom Stacey. Mr Stacey started out in his early publishing days with “Blueprint for Survival”. That book was signed off by over 30 influential scientists and called for a radical deindustrialisation and restructured society to prevent “the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems on this planet”.
That book along with “Since Silent Spring” and “The Limits to Growth” had a profound affect on me as a young boy. They shaped twenty years of my life as I went on because of the alarm these books engendered in me to study ecology, environmental science, natural resource management, economics and to teach and research in university how we can learn to better care for the natural environment.
After all these years, I found Tom Stacey’s opening essay insightful, very moving, and for me, very poignant.
The Blueprint for Survival predicted Armageddon before the year 2000 in part because by then it was predicted we would have run out of fossil fuels.
Tom Stacey writes, “We were fooled, were we not? We had got the science and demographics ridiculously wrong, the Nobel laureates, Fellows of the Royal Society, and the rest of us.”
Yes. We were fooled. We are easily fooled. That’s why Prof Carter’s work is so important.”

It seems to me he has no sense of perspective on those earlier works. First, it turns out they were basically right. The International Energy Association says we will hit peak oil within a decade or two, there is a reasonable probability it has already occurred. Rodney seems to have no perspective on this. And hasn’t he heard of ozone?

Nor does he seem to appreciate what computers have achieved in the last few decades. Someone needs to take him through the full science behind computer modelling so he can appreciate how astonishing complex it now is and how much it is relied on and proved right every day in so many spheres. So are we just seeing a slightly out of touch guy? I would be interested to understand what his day to day engagement with modern technology is.

He also needs to get over himself. So he feels he was betrayed. Its not all about him. This is too important.

lyndon October 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm

Just quietly, Scoop did have that close to the time.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1010/S00139/climate-the-counter-consensus.htm

Found it by typing ‘hide climate’ into the search engine; make of that what you will.

My fave was Rodney quoting Carter on crizazy folk like Helen Clark: “They deny that the Earth’s climate is cooling”

Hm. Yes.

Gareth October 21, 2010 at 3:03 pm

You do know that the “Rodney” above is actually Thunderbirds villain The Hood, don’t you? Any relation?

John D October 21, 2010 at 3:43 pm

The Wikipedia page for “The Hood” does provide a mine of quotable stuff for those of a satirical bent towards Mr Hide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hood_%28Thunderbirds%29

Made me smile anyway

Gareth October 22, 2010 at 11:09 am

As in:

Although capable of coming up with sophisticated plans, the Hood was commonly shown to have a short temper and be very poor at improvisation when his schemes didn’t work out the way he had planned.

Most apt!

John D October 22, 2010 at 11:58 am

That was actually the bit I was laughing at too Gareth!

Carol Cowan October 21, 2010 at 2:01 pm

From the speech …”The best investment you can make in your country and your future is to buy a hundred copies of Bob’s book to send a copy to everyone you know who is half smart and who you know can make a difference.”

Half-smart? That’s because the smart ones will see through Mr Carter’s nonsense.

John D October 21, 2010 at 2:51 pm

That’s because the smart ones will see through Mr Carter’s nonsense.

Have you read the book, and therefore feel qualified to comment?

Sam Vilain October 22, 2010 at 9:05 am

Ah, the “but you haven’t read my hundreds of pages of drivel so how could you know” argument. Ian Wishart loves to use this one. He tries to claim that if you don’t read the whole work from start to finish, the argument he makes won’t click into place for you and you won’t “get it”. And naturally, until such time you are unqualified to comment on the work.

But the point about credibility of a work is that it rests on the credibility of the author, and also, the credibility of the whole rests on the credibility of the parts. For instance its credibility can be undermined by showing the earliest arguments to be rubbish. No need to read the whole thing.

You can read the first few pages of the book at Amazon

After a bunch of inaccurate waffle about the IPCC and some description of Milankovitch cycles, there is this claim on page 42:

Measurements on the gas contained in the [ice core] bubbles demonstrate that changes in past temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in such cores occur in close parallelism. In detail, however, the changes precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by between ~800 to 2,000 years. This vital point establishes that carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature change at the glacial-interglacial scale.

As far as I can tell this is pretty much the first scientific claim in the book. And it is false; that evidence does not establish that. It might show that in the past (limited to the length of the cores), carbon dioxide was not the primary forcing agent, but in no way does it establish that it cannot be the primary forcing agent in the future. They are co-dependent variables in equilibrium; change one, the other changes too. Just because it hasn’t happened a particular direction in the past, that does not show that it can’t.

If he mucks up the very first scientific claim; of course it is a standard denier canard which is easily rebuffed.

What do you think that says about the credibility of this work?

Carol Cowan October 23, 2010 at 8:15 pm

As Sam said. And also based on everything else I’ve read that he’s written or spoken.
There are genuine points of skeptism on climate change, but I have never seen them brought up by authors of “skeptical” books. I assume it’s because they are unknowns rather than definite points of contention.

Nigel Taptiklis October 21, 2010 at 2:34 pm

They’ll be their own undoing. We need to be effective at stopping them being our undoing too.

tomfarmer October 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm

Concerning the title, is there significance in the Cap C Counter-consensus.. like does one imagine (or otherwise) that so-ordering the letters along with a hyphen can validate the term Counter-consensus whilst denying that a Consensus among scientists exists..?

Else mebbe, seen through a less dark glass, this constitutes a capital offense..

Daniel J. Andrews October 22, 2010 at 3:57 am

Science doesn’t deliver truths down from on high by consensus.

Take that, Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Darwin, Lord Kelvin, Dalton, Curie, Watson, Crick…..

Seems he knows as much about science as he does about climate.

John D October 22, 2010 at 11:51 am

Just been googling for
“Intergovernmental Panel on General Relativity”
“Intergovernmental Panel on Evolution”
“Intergovernmental Panel on DNA”

no luck so far.

Ken October 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm

And which one of those things have management implications for every country on the planet?

John D October 22, 2010 at 12:14 pm

Good spot Ken, so you’ll be onto the next scam then, Biodiversity

Already got its own international body – IPBES – of “Gold plated” scientists eagerly applying for grants, jetting of tropical islands to pontificate on turgid pronouncements on how to control the plebian underclass who are too stupid to control their own actions.

Naturally, like the IPCC, the “findings” will be pre-determined.

Thomas October 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm

John, what exactly is the scam here about biodiversity you are pointing to??
I assume you are aware that the current loss of species caused by human actions is about a factor 10,000 above the normal species background extinction rate.
This is a massive blow to life on Earth and the evolutionary process. Its caused by human expansion.

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Your efforts would be more constructive if focused on population rather than carbon dioxide.

Ken October 22, 2010 at 1:01 pm

Who pre-determined the findings, John? Who runs this international cabal that even George Bush’s govt signed their name too?

CTG October 22, 2010 at 7:24 am

Hide and his anti-science acolytes like Dewhurst, really live in a different universe. There was a good example of this on the wonderful TVNZ7 series Ever Wondered? (Sat, 6:10pm).

The show talked to a scientist (forget her name, unfortunately) who has been looking at whether white clover could be genetically modified to increase its levels of condensed tannins, which could substantially reduce methane emissions. As ag. emissions are nearly half NZ’s emissions total, any reduction could potentially save NZ millions of dollars.

Now, in Dewhurst’s fantasy universe, you just need to mention the words “global warming” on a grant application and your footsteps will be lined with gold.

In the real world, this scientist couldn’t get funding for this piece of research. It was quite speculative – she was looking for the gene that produced condensed tannins in a related but unpalatable clover species. So, she just went ahead and did the research anyway, in her spare time. After five years of putting in extra evenings, she found the gene and transplanted it into white clover. Lab tests showed that it could potentially reduce methane emissions by 15%.

If Hide and Dewhurst had their way, they’d probably have this scientist sacked for misuse of equipment, or something.

In my opinion, ACT, and lunatic fringe organisations like the NZCSC and CCG are the biggest threat to NZ’s society right now. If scientists have to live in fear of upsetting their political masters, if they can be sued just for asking hard questions that big business don’t want asked, then innovation will be stifled, and the scientists will leave. Without science driving innovation and technology, we won’t have an economy.

Disclaimer: my wife works for the RSNZ, which co-produces the Ever Wondered? series (although she’s not involved in the show). Still, it is a fantastic show, highlighting some extraordinary science happening in NZ across a whole range of fields. It’s a shame that it’s not on TV1 at prime time. I would like the series to be shown in every school in the country, to show the amazing things that NZ scientists have done – in spite of the appalling lack of support NZ science receives from politicians of all shades.

John D October 22, 2010 at 8:32 am

In my opinion, ACT, and lunatic fringe organisations like the NZCSC and CCG are the biggest threat to NZ’s society right now

Bigger than the threat of terrorism, tsunami and earthquakes?

Wow, I am sure Rodney will be impressed.

Carol Cowan October 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm

The threat of life-endangering tsunami to NZ is minimal due to our narrow continental shelf.

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Rubbish. A narrow continental shelf does not attenuate the wave as much as a wide one. The Aceh tsunami, for example, did the most damage where the sea was deep close inshore. In the Malacca Straight, which is shallow, the wave was attenuated to nothing. I was in Malacca at the time. The effective bottom of the wave is about three times the wavelength. When it touches bottom the wave slows and increases in amplitude. However friction takes the energy out of the wave pretty quickly. On a steeply shelving coastline the wave increases in amplitude very quickly and hits with most of its energy intact. If a tsunami generated near South America hits NZ the biggest wave will hit Kaikoura.

Carol Cowan October 22, 2010 at 4:41 pm

It looks like I remembered my far-off geology lesson back to front, Roger (http://www.gebco.net/about_us/gebco_science_day/documents/tsunami_propagation_and_coastal_bathymetry.pdf). Thanks for the correction.

Carol Cowan October 22, 2010 at 8:48 pm

my earlier reply has disappeared, Roger. So I will give the gist again: research today shows me that I had learned an early geology lesson back to front. Thanks for the correction.

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm

Who told you that?

Steve Wrathall October 22, 2010 at 8:50 pm

That’s really the whole point isn’t it? Once you’ve convinced yourself that you’re saving the world, any group that opposes your agenda becomes a “threat to society”, and easy to dehumanise. And the fantasising about this group’s elimination becomes a natural follow-on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

CTG October 23, 2010 at 7:23 am

Another person who is unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

Rodney Hide is not a cartoon character, unfortunately, he is a minister of the realm. And yet he and his sidekicks are trying to take us back to the Middle Ages, replacing science with superstition. You don’t see that as a problem?

Carol Cowan October 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm

But don’t the climate change deniers have exactly the same attitude, Steve? Aren’t they forever claiming that acting to limit carbon emissions will destroy our economy and ruin western civilization? Afterall, why do you and others like you come to this forum? Is it not to proselytise? Otherwise, why bother? The few times ‘skeptics’ here ask a genuine question (ie without all the alarmist accusations etc) stand out like pony in a pigsty.

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 11:12 am

“Now, in Dewhurst’s fantasy universe, you just need to mention the words “global warming” on a grant application and your footsteps will be lined with gold.”

Your favourite fantasy monger, Stoat Connolley, has just had his wings clipped. A good thing too; climate articles in Wikipedia might just become reliable.

WikiPropaganda Wikipedia bars a global warming censor from editing its
pages.
[Long cut'n'paste snipped - Roger, you know the rules - and this is way off topic.]

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 11:56 am

Yes the rules: The Mann gang and associates may not be criticized!

Connolley even posted here as I recall?

[Rudeness snipped GR]

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 2:44 pm

It was far less rude than the comments you, and your accolytes, routinely make. Why not print it and let others make their own judgement?

Gareth October 22, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Nope. You want to be gratuitously rude, find somewhere else to do it.

Nick October 24, 2010 at 11:04 pm

Roger,given your position and commentary has not varied in years,simply post “RD in disagreement” whenever you feel the urge to post. This will save us all time and space.

Doug Bostrom October 22, 2010 at 8:10 am

Lately we’ve been seeing a lot of the “opportunity cost” distraction as first(?) articulated by GOP egghead Luntz some years ago. I’m just amazed that the amorphous cloud of libertarians and free-marketeers will happily recite this argument, as though if we’d only ignore physics we’d find in ourselves a change of heart and freely transfer wealth to the world’s poor. We don’t do so today, we won’t in the future and this has nothing to do with climate change.

Just a few minutes with a calculator shows that the top income earners of the world could revolutionize education and health opportunities for the bottom earners, today, with an amount of money barely noticeable in the grand scheme of economics. Today we choose not to offer these tools to the poor because human nature is against wealth transfer of this kind, even when it makes perfectly good sense from a rational perspective. We won’t change our behavior in this regard simply because we’ve decided to selectively ignore a collection of research findings rooted in physics.

Rob Taylor October 22, 2010 at 8:58 am

So, Rodney Hide sold out his youthful idealism and must now defend that error against any and all evidence to the contrary.

Poor soul, it is no wonder he is such a conflicted and hypocritical individual…

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 2:41 pm

He learned that the idealism of youth is often uninformed. Obviously you, among others here, have failed to learn that.

Le Chat Noir October 22, 2010 at 3:19 pm

When your heart is covered with the snows of pessimism and the ice of cynicism, then, and then only, are you grown old. And then, indeed as the ballad says, you just fade away.
Douglas MacArthur

Richard T October 22, 2010 at 3:44 pm

People like Dewhurst, Hide, and Carter have had the easiest lives of any generation that walked the planet. Their life-experience counts for little and they have nothing worthwhile to say. Carter going on about a much warmer planet millions of years ago fails to appreciate that our society and food production methods, etc have all been developed for/adapted to the recent climate of the past few thousand years or so.

The widespread coral bleachings, arctice ice melt, glacial retreat are all unprecedented within the past several hundred years and most likely for human history and maybe only the beginning of a rapid change in global climate patterns that humans will not easily adapt to.

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Your last paragraph is rubbish, mere propaganda of the sort that Stoat Connolley has been chopped down to size for.

Carol Cowan October 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm

Which bit of that last paragraph do you specifically disagree with, Roger?

Roger Dewhurst October 23, 2010 at 8:59 am

Coral bleaching and the degree of melting arctic ice are not unusual. Glaciers have been retreating and advancing throughout recorded history. There is nothing unusual there. Just remember that we have not been long out of the LIA.

CTG October 23, 2010 at 10:09 am
Carol Cowan October 23, 2010 at 8:38 pm

Glaciers extend and retreat depending upon the amount of precipitation they receive (mainly snow) in their higher reaches. During the MWP glaciers in Switzerland were at their furtherest extent into the valleys (Encyclopedia Britannica – Climate). At what other time in human history have so many glaciers around the world been retreating?

Carol Cowan October 24, 2010 at 7:09 pm

I forgot the obvious, blame my head-cold, glaciers also respond to air temperature.

As for the LIA, how long is long? That ended about 200 years ago, and seems to be linked to solar activity and volcanic activity – http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm. If Earth was responding solely to solar activity we would be in similar cool period now.

As for ice ages in general, we are in an interglacial period of an ice age.

Richard T October 23, 2010 at 8:44 am

Fool.

Tell me when the NW passage was anything other than a pipe-dream until the last few years.

bill October 23, 2010 at 10:19 am

…and he don’ know nuttin’ about coral reefs, either!

The Tom Jones Meme (‘It’s not unusual’) may be popular with deniers, but those of us who are actually located here in both time and place – and have some idea of the complex dependencies on natural systems of our existing civilization – are unlikely to be consoled by the idea that some similar disaster may have occurred in the Neolithic (or Pliocene for that matter!)

It’s a bit like Keynes’ famous rebuttal to the notion that the markets would sort themselves out; ‘The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.’

Roger Dewhurst October 23, 2010 at 12:17 pm

2. ROALD AMUNDSEN: First Navigation by Ship
1905: In mid August, Amundsen sailed from Gjøahaven (today: Gjoa Haven, Nunavut) in the vessel Gjøa. On August 26 they encountered a ship bearing down on them from the west, and with that they were through the passage. From Amundsen’s diary:
The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream – at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn – it was weakness in me – but I felt tears in my eyes. ‘Vessel in sight’ … Vessel in sight.

3. ST. ROCH: First West-East Crossing
1940-1942: The St. Roch was given the task of demonstrating Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. It was ordered to sail from Vancouver to Halifax by way of the Northwest Passage.
The St. Roch left Vancouver in June 1940 and on October 11, 1942, it docked at Halifax – the first ship to travel from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Northwest Passage. The journey had taken almost 28 months.

4. ST. ROCH: Northern Deep-Water Route (East-West)
1944: The St. Roch was the first ship to travel the Northwest Passage through the northern, deep-water route and the first to sail the Passage in both directions.

Gareth October 23, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Amundsen’s passage took three years. This year a Kiwi sailor, Graeme Kendall, made it through solo, non stop, in a record 12 days.

Richard T October 23, 2010 at 8:37 pm

OK – for the purposes of commercial shipping then it hasn’t been seriously considered a possibility until a few years ago.

Richard T October 23, 2010 at 9:31 pm

So why would it be a boyhood dream and cause tears in the eyes of Amundsen?

Noone has ever claimed glaciers have not retreated or corals haven’t bleached before; it’s the scale and geographic spread that’s causing the worry. Especially when there is this link to CO2.

Tom Bennion October 22, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Roger D

You say “He learned that the idealism of youth is often uninformed. Obviously you, among others here, have failed to learn that.”

Rodney is all caught up in the idea that he has “matured” out of youthful idealism. Because he hasnt checked in with the facts, he is just swapping one youthful mistake for another. When will he grow up?

I wish he had studied history.

Roger Dewhurst October 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm

You, and the rest here, hold the arrogant belief that you, and you alone, must be right. In fact there is a diversity of belief whether or not you choose to deny it claiming that the sceptics are unqualified to comment, or deniers, or in the pay of the oil or tobacco companies. That is not the way real scientist behave. You behave as Connolley has done. The proper consequences befell him though it took much time for this to happen. I suggest that you begin to behave with some integrity.

Dappledwater October 22, 2010 at 9:36 pm

You, and the rest here, hold the arrogant belief that you, and you alone, must be right.

Yeah us, and 97% of climate scientists.

I tell you who is arrogant, those hoity-toity ice sheets. What gives them the right to melt?. Don’t they read skeptic blogs?.

Roger Dewhurst October 23, 2010 at 10:57 am

Vaclav Klaus in the Spectator.

Read the whole article.

“I like Carter’s emphasis on the crucial difference between global warming (which is part of normal scientific discourse) and ‘dangerous anthropogenic global warming’ (which is ideological propaganda). He is also right when talking about the difficulty in defining who is and who is not a climatologist, and turning our attention to the fact that there is no ‘climate science’, because ‘scientists who study climate change come from a wide range of disciplines’. His decision to group them into three main categories — meteorologists, geologists and the computer modelling group — is also revealing. Importantly, he notes that the group with the fewest warmists is the geological scientists, because they are able to compare ‘modern climate change with climate history’, which is something the meteorologists and the computer modelling experts — quite intentionally — do not do.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/6392618/part_2/thank-heavens-for-bob-carter.thtml

adelady October 23, 2010 at 12:10 pm

What a strange way to group the scientists involved! Where do the biological sciences fit in this schema?

Glaciologists, oceanographers – a whole heap of other people in other disciplines just got excluded. This is a very odd way to think.

Mike Palin October 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm

Bob Carter’s grouping of scientists who study climate change (= climate scientists?) into three “categories” gives insight into his thinking. In particular, his separation of a distinct computer modelling group is woefully out of date. I know of very few active geoscientists that do not utilise computer modelling. Mine planning, groundwater remediation, seismic interpretation, and prospectivity analysis are some examples from industry alone. Earth systems are simply too complex to deal with effectively without computer models. Those that berate computer modelling are out of touch with reality and usually out of work because of it.

The suggestion that a large proportion of geologists do not accept the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic global warming is totally false. It is exactly because geologists can compare ‘modern climate change with climate history’ that most of us are deeply concerned about accelerating greenhouse gas emissions and especially the looming coal-boom. Read the Geological Soceity of America policy statement on climate change (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm) – revised this past April after “climategate” – to get a more accurate view of the views of geologists.

Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and their pathetic comrades are out for a few bucks and a minute of fame – they would make appropriate cast additions to the next “Jackass” movie.

Roger Dewhurst October 23, 2010 at 5:56 pm

The difference is that the useful models are rooted in equations that reflect reality, groundwater modeling and earth resistivity for example. Seismic models are based on Snells Law. These have been proved to work, by drilling and pump testing. The climate models are pie in the sky dreams all producing different outcomes and all wrong.

As for your final paragraph, it is typical of a crypto-communist seeking political power without a constituency and a well paid sinecure to boot.

Ken October 23, 2010 at 6:28 pm

All your talk of communists demonstrates exactly how connected to reality you are.

Mike Palin October 23, 2010 at 7:32 pm

“A crypto-communist seeking political power without a constituency and a well paid sinecure to boot”? Hmm, I have to admit I had to look some of those gems up!

Your ability to consider accurate predictions of global warming, sea level rise, and seawater pH decrease made on the basis of modelling of the physio-chemical consequences of increased atmospheric greenhouse gases that have resulted from anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels as “all wrong” because the public policy implications don’t jive with your particular world view is behaviour diagnostic of an ideologue.

John D October 24, 2010 at 11:35 am

Carter’s assertion, as I read it, is that there is a distinct discipline of scientists who specialise in climate modelling with GCMs. This does not preclude other groups of scientists using computer models.

The two concepts are not incompatible.

As for casting for “Jackass”, I cannot comment on Carter’s acting ability.

Richard T October 23, 2010 at 9:56 pm

“which is something the meteorologists and the computer modelling experts — quite intentionally — do not do.”

That is a staggering deception on the part of Carter. Paleoclimatic modelling and its results are most seriously considered by all disciplines involved in climate change research.

Interesting to see that while Carter attempts to detract from climate change research by saying it is not a “science”, he does admit that the climate change researchers are trained professionals who conduct rigorous investigations, well isn’t that what belonging to a discipline implies?

I really don’t know what Carter has against multi-disciplinary research. Seems like an arrogant snob to me!

Richard T October 23, 2010 at 9:36 pm

It’s not that we are arrogant and know all the answers, it’s just that the probability of you being correct is very low, and the consequences of failure to act should your viewpoint prevail could be very bad.

tomfarmer October 22, 2010 at 9:04 pm

Roger,

That is not the way real scientist behave.

Integrity would include, would it not, a significant consistency.

As I recall you perhaps a month or so ago posted your beliefs on this site in a manner not unlike religious demogogues nailing proclamations to large wooden church doors. Unlike them, however, this site would consider your efforts anathema.

Given what follows your quote above kindly explain the very obvious inconsistency. Integrity, not least, demands it.

BTW how are ye these days?

Rob Taylor October 22, 2010 at 9:06 pm

As always, Roger, the denialist echo chamber of empty heads desperately amplifies any crumb of typographical error or human error they can find, in the pathetic hope that, somehow, it will keep physical reality at bay until you’re all too senile to notice…

I, for one, prefer to live in the real world, as described by science, and face up to the truth of what we are doing to the planet.

Dappledwater October 23, 2010 at 6:51 pm

The climate models are pie in the sky dreams all producing different outcomes and all wrong.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mostmods.jpg

Al October 23, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Thanks for that reference, Dappledwater. It’s very impressive – a slam dunk, actually.

John D October 23, 2010 at 11:15 pm

Any computer model can be tweaked to fit historical data, and models that agree with other models do not validate those models.

Therefore, the graph presented above does not indicate any predictive value of the models.

Dappledwater October 23, 2010 at 11:54 pm

Therefore, the graph presented above does not indicate any predictive value of the models.

So you have already lived through the year 2020, and traveled back in time to simply be argumentative?.

Richard T October 24, 2010 at 7:33 am

And also the rising trend in temperatures from the late 80′s onwards was also predicted in advance by similar models. So on that count I guess they do have even more predictive value.

I’m not sure John D really understands climate modelling at all.

John D October 24, 2010 at 8:59 am

From Judith Curry’s blog
“The culture of building confidence in climate models”

Worth a read.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/10/the-culture-of-building-confidence-in-climate-models/

Gareth October 24, 2010 at 10:06 am

To help you along a little, John. Try reading the papers in this list at Only In It For The Gold.

John D October 24, 2010 at 10:30 am

From the IPCC third assessment report:

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

Gareth October 24, 2010 at 11:09 am

You left out the next sentence:

The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

That’s useful information, n’est-ce-pas?. But it was also written for the IPCC’s Third Report. Why not go and read FAR instead? Or some of the papers I listed for you…?

Roger Dewhurst October 24, 2010 at 10:36 am

In the absence of an equation that fully describes the climate, taking into account EVERY input there can be no valid numerical model. There is no valid model and it is highly unlikely that there ever will be. There may however be valid models for certain aspects of climate, circulation patterns etc. It does not matter how many papers have been written, how many ‘models’ have been concocted, none have any predictive value until the first condition, set out above, is met.

Gareth October 24, 2010 at 11:13 am

Nonsense. You’re simply showing the extent of your misunderstanding of what earth systems modelling is and does.

John D October 24, 2010 at 11:21 am

At the heart of climate model complexity lies the nonlinear dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, which is described by the Navier-Stokes equations. The solution of Navier-Stokes equations is one of the most vexing problems in all of mathematics: the Clay Mathematics Institute has declared this to be one of the top 7 problems in all of mathematics and is offering a $1M prize for its solution

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/what-can-we-learn-from-climate-models/

Roger Dewhurst October 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Just explain then how a model can work without the fundamental equation.

Gareth October 24, 2010 at 12:33 pm

There is no single, “fundamental equation” for the earth system. There are many “fundamental” equations that interlock, which is why the models are complex and demand huge computing resources.

CTG October 24, 2010 at 3:03 pm

You could always read my Ph.D. thesis (UEA, 1996).

I developed two models of disease dynamics in rabbit populations. The first was a traditional, numerical model, based on three dynamic equations. The second was an individual-based model, which explicitly represents every individual animal in the population. There are very low-level rules that describe the behaviour of the individual animals, and thus their chances of reproducing, migrating, being eaten or catching disease. In that case, there was no “fundamental equation” describing the disease dynamics – the population behaviour was derived from the sum of its parts.

This second type of model is how modern climate models work, by describing the low-level physics line-by-line, and then building that up into an earth system model. How the atmosphere responds to changing forcings is then an emerging property of the model, rather than there being a single equation that describes all of the behaviour.

Of course, if you’d had any contact with science more recently than the late Cretaceous, you would know that, Roger.

Rob Taylor October 24, 2010 at 11:17 am

Roger, that is bullshit, and you know it.

For instance, there is no equation that fully describes the interaction of more than 2 objects, you still drive on the left side of the road, because of the clear predictive ability of the inexact models we do have.

In short, you know the chances of a collision are greatly increased by such risky behaviour… likewise, adding heat to Earth systems greatly increases the chance of dangerous consequences to humanity.

Roger Dewhurst October 24, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Rubbish. You have not got a clue. Totally out of your depth. Just consider earth resistivity models or seismic refraction models. The latter are based on one simple equation, that describing Snells Law.

RedLogix October 24, 2010 at 1:14 pm

There is no ‘fundamental equation’ that describes ‘how long you will live’…and yet if you apply for life insurance they have the numbers for exactly that very precisely modelled and predicted.

On which basis they make money.

Mike Palin October 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Snell’s Law is an approximation that provides a macroscopic description of wave refraction. I would venture to say that the underlying physics is well beyond both of our capabilities. The bottomline is that it works well enough. Seismic interpretation models that incorporate Snell’s Law are very complex – requiring supercomputers to process enormous amounts of data – and sometimes yield bogus results. Nonetheless, the oil and gas industries routinely base decisions involving billions of dollars on the results of these models.

Which is all exactly analogous to climate models – good basis in physics, complex application to nature, outcomes with uncertainties, and billion dollar implications. The difference is that when an oil company blows it, their shareholders take the hit. When Earth’s climate and oceans change for the worse, we all take the hit.

That is why a robust discussion of policies to deal with greenhouse gas emissions should be taking place. Instead, contrarians such as yourself are derailling the discussion by spreading misinformation and attacking scientists. Future generations will look back at your kind with disgust.

Rob Taylor October 24, 2010 at 7:59 pm

Poor Roger – you are confusing equations with their solutions. A non-linear equation, such as Navier-Stokes for fluid flow, can be deceptively simple to write, but impossible to solve analytically – or have you never heard of turbulence?

Perhaps a remedial maths course would be in order – along with the remedial geophysics?

Rob Taylor October 24, 2010 at 11:10 am

Correct, John, which is why the IPCC does stochastic modelling to give the probabilities of various outcomes, as explained in the sentence following the one you have cherry-picked:

“The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions… Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential. “

Roger Dewhurst October 24, 2010 at 2:05 pm

“Snell’s Law is an approximation that provides a macroscopic description of wave refraction. I would venture to say that the underlying physics is well beyond both of our capabilities. The bottomline is that it works well enough. Seismic interpretation models that incorporate Snell’s Law are very complex – requiring supercomputers to process enormous amounts of data – and sometimes yield bogus results. Nonetheless, the oil and gas industries routinely base decisions involving billions of dollars on the results of these models.”

How you got a university job knowing as little as you do is beyond belief.
Snells Law is not an approximation. It applies both for light and sound. Did you ever do any thin section microscopy? I doubt it. Did you ever do a basic geophysics course? I doubt it. You do not need a supercomputer for seismic refraction, to which I referred. You can do it on the back of an envelope, nearly. Seismic reflection is something else though. With that comment you show yourself up to be quite unfitted to be a teacher of geology, or indeed anything else, in a university. If you cannot understand Snells Law go back and try school certificate physics.

Mike Palin October 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm

Roger-
The physics of light refraction is extremely complex and frankly beyond me – although I use it daily to examine thin sections of rocks. If you think for a moment you understand all of it, then you are a bigger fool than even I thought possible.

The physics behind refraction of seismic waves is far less complex, but inversion of data for anything more complex than a few layers requires computation particularly if the layers are anisotropic.

I’ll be the first to admit I am very fortunate to a have (part of) a university position to teach and do research in geology – the discipline I love. And my favourite part of the job is teaching students who otherwise wouldn’t have a clue how Earth works – kind of like you. But some students are not prepared to learn, and no matter what I do to spur them on, they refuse to leave their comfort zone of self-imposed ignorance – just like you. It is the single most frustrating I have to deal with (even counting administration), but I persist because a mind, any mind – even yours – is too important to waste.

Roger Dewhurst October 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Somehow you have extrapolated my statement that Snells Law provides the equation on which seismic refraction modeling is based into some bizarre rant. Snells Law does provide the basic equation for seismic refraction. That is a fact.

Of course in the real world problems arise with velocity inversions etc. In earth resistivity the fundamental equation is analagous with a heat transfer equation. With increasing layer numbers problems of equivalence arise. Perhaps if you could grasp the problem of equivalence in earth resistivity you would lose your naive faith in climate models. But physics is not your strong point is it? I wonder what strong point you actually have, if any!

You might love geology but that does not entitle you to poison the minds of young students with your left wing political agenda. You were provided with a job, or part of one, to teach geology not politics. It was clearly a mistake to give you even half a job.

Carol Cowan October 24, 2010 at 7:18 pm

Why are you so rude, Roger? Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you left-wing? How do you make that jump in logic?

CTG October 24, 2010 at 8:05 pm

Reality has a well-known liberal bias!

bill October 24, 2010 at 10:07 pm

And it was clearly a mistake to give Roger access to a typewriter! There you go, well all just have to learn to live in a flawed world!

I’m reminded of Greg Palast’s observation during the US healthcare debate that the Tea Party right’s constant labelling of every half-way humanistic idea as ‘Socialism’ was only likely to make people think maybe there was something in it after all!

I couldn’t say that our denialist regulars were achieving as much on behalf of Capitalism and the Free-Marketâ„¢ though!

This ideological ‘you’re all scheming lefties’ thing is actually one: a simple projection and two; as CTG has pointed out, a result of reality’s well-known liberal (US sense) bias!

CTG October 25, 2010 at 2:16 am

Look, you have to realise that the last time that Dewhurst was relevant was the 1960′s. The sexual revolution was something that passed him by, like many other things. He only knows one way to engage: “Red or dead”; so if you disagree with Roger, you must be a Communist, by definition.

The rest of us know that his voice belongs to the past, and will soon pass into obscurity. I actually feel a bit sad about that – as much as I disagree with what Roger says, I defend to the hilt his right to say what he says.The real shame is that he doesn’t have anything worthwhile to say.

Roger Dewhurst October 25, 2010 at 7:03 am

Clearly you do not wish to recall the pages and pages of rudeness, accusations of being right wing, in the pay of the oil companies etc etc, directed at the sceptics, posted by GR and his acolytes here! Put your own house in order before having a shot a me on that score.

CTG October 25, 2010 at 9:19 am

Diddums.

Calling anyone who disagrees with you a communist is not rational behaviour, Roger.

Roger Dewhurst October 25, 2010 at 9:48 am

And calling anybody who disagrees with you a denier, right winger, in the pay of big oil, etc etc, is not rational behaviour. Just remember it was your lot that started the abuse. Your lot broke the ordinary rules of decency. Don’t blubber when you get some back. You are contemptible.

CTG October 25, 2010 at 10:44 am

I’m not the one throwing a tantrum, Roger.

I would be more than happy to engage in constructive debate if you would do likewise. But there are some rules to scientific discourse, which you show no signs of obeying.

For example, look at your comments flatly denying that recent Arctic ice melting is unusual. You provide no evidence for that claim whatsoever, whereas we have pointed to several scientific articles that contradict you. In response, you call anyone that disagrees with you a communist.

How are we supposed to have a rational debate with you when you behave like that? Stop behaving like a spoilt brat, and you might get some respect.

RedLogix October 24, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Such astounding arrogance. Snells Law may well be an exact description of refraction….but it’s derived from deeper physical principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

on which Snells Law is entirely mute. It’s a bit like claiming that F=ma is the quantum explanation for mass.

The rest of your ranting simply tells everyone you’ve run out of ideas.

Mike Palin October 24, 2010 at 8:36 pm

You assume too much Dimhurst. I won’t put up with dumbass sh*t from either end of the poltical spectrum which is why I’ll continue to point out the many faults in your thinking.

Roger Dewhurst October 24, 2010 at 2:23 pm

“There are many “fundamental” equations that interlock, which is why the models are complex and demand huge computing resources.”

And why they are still flawed and of no predictive value whatever.

Dappledwater October 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm

And why they are still flawed and of no predictive value whatever.

Hmmmm………let’s look at Manabe et al 1992:

Using a coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model, they correctly predicted:

- Arctic amplification
- Minimum Arctic surface air temperature warming in summer.
- Maximum Arctic surface air temp warming in winter.
- Asymmetry of polar sea ice trends, a decline in summer sea ice in the Arctic and very little change in the Antarctic sea ice, apart from increases in the Ross and Weddell seas (due to oceanic stratification from increased precipitation)
- reduction of summer snow cover
- Increased soil moisture deficits in the Northern Hemisphere summer.

Not that they are a perfect representation of the real world, of course, but they do demonstrate skill.

Richard T October 24, 2010 at 9:31 pm

I think you are confusing deterministic predictions with stochastic.

Dappledwater October 24, 2010 at 11:13 pm

If that comment is aimed in my direction, I think you are confusing me with a skeptic.

Richard T October 25, 2010 at 4:11 pm

The repsonses to the text above by Roger Dewhurst
“And why they are still flawed and of no predictive value whatever”
Sometimes it is hard to tell who a repsonse ios directed at – I think you have to go by the level of indent.

I do not believe you (Dappledwater) could ever be mistaken for a skeptic/denier.

John D October 24, 2010 at 6:42 pm

There is a video presentation on climate models by Mike Hulme here
(about 52 mins long. Worth a watch, but a lot of “post-normal” science in there.)

http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/page/195/media-gallery.htm

There are some interesting observations on model verification and validation (not possible according to Oreskes), and also I took away this quote regarding the use of model ensembles to produce a kind of model democracy to come up with a range of results:

Reto Knutti (2010)

There is a real danger of model convergence as a result of tuning, consensus on metrics and peer pressure, rather than improved understanding…

Dappledwater October 24, 2010 at 8:20 pm

and also I took away this quote regarding the use of model ensembles to produce a kind of model democracy to come up with a range of results

Actually that’s the real head scratcher. Why the mean of all the model runs more closely match observations than any individual GCM?.

Roger Dewhurst October 25, 2010 at 7:05 am

Because none of them are right perhaps?

RedLogix October 25, 2010 at 9:57 am

Getting old isn’t easy Roger.. as my own father once said, “Everything I know is irrelevant now”. It was perhaps one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard him say.

I’m no spring chook either, and when I examine my own modest physics and engineering education in the light of what has become possible in the decades since I was at University…I too am daunted.

Yet it is worth remembering, that for all this, these younger warriors who so shake the world, are but standing on the shoulders of giants.

John D October 25, 2010 at 11:19 am

In the video I posted above, I found the comments of Kevin Trenberth interesting.

He says that as they increase the complexity and number of parameters of a climate model, the uncertainty increases, and this will be reflected in increased uncertainty reported in AR5.

The explanation of this from Hulme was stated as “there are more things to go wrong”.

My assertion is, that as climate models approach a more accurate view of the real climate, the insoluble nature of the climate system becomes apparent.

Is it not a reasonable extrapolation of Trenberth’s statement that uncertainty in models will increase to the point where they are completely meaningless?

RedLogix October 25, 2010 at 12:05 pm

That’s why we use computer models. The uncertainties in any one model run may well be large, but as the model is run over and over the ‘Law of Large Numbers’ reduces the range of probable outcomes.

And of course the ‘uncertainties’ Trenberth is referring to is a reflection of the natural variability of the climate anyway. If the models did indeed have a simple underlying law that produced a single unvarying result, they would fail to reproduce this ‘noise’ that is an obvious feature of the system.

But the huge utility of computer models, unlike the actual planet we all live on, is that by running the experiment repeatedly…the underlying range of probable results becomes obvious.

John D October 25, 2010 at 12:16 pm

Of course, the models all assume various input parameters, in particular the influence of water vapour, on the climate system, as known quantities.

The reality is that the influence of water vapour is hardly understood.

No amount of models will smooth that out.

RedLogix October 25, 2010 at 12:46 pm

“The reality is that the influence of water vapour is hardly understood. ”

‘Still the subject of a lot of interesting work’… is not the same as ‘hardly understood’. The role of water vapour and clouds may well be complex, but the boundaries of that uncertainty are well defined and hardly controversial.

Again the beauty of modelling is that you can easily insert all kinds of initial conditions and vary parameters over a very wide range of possible values to see what kind of sensitivity the result has to them.

Roger Dewhurst October 25, 2010 at 11:33 am

“Is it not a reasonable extrapolation of Trenberth’s statement that uncertainty in models will increase to the point where they are completely meaningless?”

Yes. They have got to that point already.

Dappledwater October 25, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Roger, you really are nuttier than a peanut slab. Remember this, posted above?.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mostmods.jpg

The average of all the model runs is closely tracking measured global surface temperature.

John D October 25, 2010 at 3:03 pm

And how does this make the models a valid projection of future scenarios?

I could do the same with econometric models, get them to fit prior dates. It doesn’t make them any more valid for prediction.

Maybe you should read Vaclav Klaus’s comments in this regard.

adelady October 25, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Valid? Does that mean perfect? All we need is adequate.

afaik, when a model is put together, the best way to test it is to run it from a known, past, starting point with known inputs and see what happens. If the output matches the recorded observations, we know it’s worthwhile. If it comes up with strange or completely wrong output, we have to decide whether it’s worth further work or should be abandoned.

Seeing as there are many, many models used by different groups which have produced pretty good results, we know they’re worth persisting with. But we do know they have inadequacies. No-one projected or predicted the spectacular decline in Arctic sea ice despite the atmospheric temperature predictions coming out pretty well as modelled. The Greenland melt is also underestimated in many projections (can’t blame the IPCC there – they left it out completely).

I don’t know but I presume that there’s some fairly drastic work under way on working out the effects of SST changes and the related ocean flows. And they’re just the things I know about – I’m sure there are many others.

John D October 25, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Dappledwater October 25, 2010 at 11:14 pm

And how does this make the models a valid projection of future scenarios?

Do you have privileged information of the global temperatures in 2020?.

The simulations are those used for the 2007 IPCC report. The fact they closely match known past temperatures and are still tracking global temps in 2010 demonstrates skill. I know you don’t want to accept that, but ho-hum.

I could do the same with econometric models, get them to fit prior dates.

We’re talking about climate models here. Which equations would you modify to better represent the real world?. And why do you think modelers just “fudge” things?.

You seem to have a rather convenient set of excuses.

Dappledwater October 25, 2010 at 10:33 pm

Errr, John D, you do realize that warming of the tropical troposphere above that of the surface is expected regardless of the cause of global warming?. Right?.

Those “skeptics” might think they’re taking aim at models but in effect they’re attacking a basic precept of atmospheric physics, the moist/saturated adiabatic lapse rate, which is one of those equations input to the climate models.

Not that this is exactly new ground:

From Santer et al 2008, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

“When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results.

“Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller
tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not significantly different from those in all other model simulations.”

“Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations.”

“This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and
on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’”

Rob Taylor October 26, 2010 at 2:16 am

John D., you really should try to understand these claims from the denialosphere before re-posting them here and making a fool of yourself.

Or is it a case of “never mind the quality, look at the quantity…”?

John D October 26, 2010 at 8:35 am

I am assuming that you are aware of the fisking that Judith Curry has been giving climate models over at her blog, in particular exposing the circular reasoning used therein.

Circularity in the argument

Apart from the issue of the actual logic used for reasoning, there is circularity in the argument that is endemic to whatever reasoning logic is used. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy whereby the proposition to be proved is assumed in one of the premises.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/24/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iii/

Rob Taylor October 26, 2010 at 9:19 am

John D.,I am well aware of circular reasoning, one sees it all the time from AGW deniers:

“We can’t bear to change our wasteful lifestyles, so climate change can’t be happening, therefore all those scientists are corrupt fools and the manifest real-world indicators of warming are just Nature wanting to impose a Islamosocialist dictatorship under Barack Obama, born in the Kenyan province of Hawaii…”

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: