Why Do Climate Scientists Act So Much Like Con Artists?

[Steve Case]

I wrote:
There isn't a problem which means there is no need for a solution.
What we need relief from is left wing agitators.

I am not a non-believer either. Show me the science. Explain the science. Keep it transparent and apolitical and then I'll decide what I believe and how important an issue I believe it is.

You guys are making the claim that there's a problem, so you guys need to prove it.

You are essentially asking me to prove the negative.

How 'bout this: "There's a good probability that a boogeyman has taken up residence in your house. Boogeymen are very bad, and the best way to get rid of one is to burn your house down." I assume you didn't run right out and get a can of gas and a book of matches because you know there really isn't a boogeyman in your house, and I'm BSing you. So how do I prove CO2 isn't a problem and how do you prove there isn't a boogeyman?

Can one prove the negative? You can Google that and find Russell's Teapot and a few others examples.

The best I can do is point to a few things that cast a lot of doubt. Mostly the predictions aren't coming true.

Sea level isn't going up faster and faster.
It isn't as warm as the models say it should be by now.
The polar bears have increased their numbers.
The frequency of extreme tornadoes is down.
Hurricane frequency is about the same and down to nearly zero in the U.S.

Then there's the exaggerations, lies and propaganda:

The Climategate emails
All of those ridiculous link titles on the Numbers Watch page
The adjustments to the temperature time series that always seem to go one way.
The adjustments to the sea level time series that always seem to go one way.
The adjustments to the Argo floats after they were launched and showed cooling and now they show warming.
The claims that Antarctica is melting when it never gets above freezing most places there.
The claims that when the glaciers disappear the rivers will run dry when you know it still rains and snows there.
The claim that the deep ocean abyss is warming. For physical reasons temperature never varies below the thermocline.
The "Methane is so many times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2" meme that I've been harping about.
The ridiculous claims of multi-meter sea level rise.

And the good aspects of increased CO2 are thoroughly ignored:

CO2 via photosynthesis is the feed stock of all life on earth i.e., it needs to be there and more is better.
A warmer world with more rain, longer growing seasons, more arable land and crops that are more drought resistant are rarely mentioned.

Then there's the politics of only allowing one side of the issue to be heard. Well you wanted it to be apolitical but it isn't. The issue splits right down party lines and you know it. Or at least you should. And the politics is getting quite ugly.

 

[jmotivator]

Scott Adams was asked what it would take for him to believe that climate change is real.

He replied that if climate scientists are to persuade him they need to stop using climate models in a way that looks so much like it's all a scam (or hoax).

Adams is not a scientist, which he freely admits. He has no way of judging the science. But he can see that the climate model business resembles known scams. And he asks, if it's not a scam why does it look so much like a scam?

People are well aware of financial scams. One type is when you're offered an investment that has had a great return in the past, or, at least, that's what you are told. The scammers will tell you that they'll make you 20% a year on this investment. That is, they claim that they can predict future performance. But there is no economic model that can accurately predict future performance. Hence the warning: "Past performance does not guarantee future results." So it is, or should be, with climate models.

For example, there are a multitude of climate models. The scientists won't settle on one model. They tweek these models by adjusting them to match known data as they go along. Many of the models turn out to be wrong, and maybe one of them is right by chance, so the modelers claim their science if validated. But it's not science; it's a bunch of blind mice in a field of acorns. Some of them are going to find acorns. This doesn't mean the science is right.

Can't the scientists act in a way that would look more credible? Adams asks. For example, they could settle on one climate model, it's underlying assumptions and hypothesis would be well understood. Then they test it, and when they compare the prediction with the real climate data, they transparently conclude that the model is accurate or it is not. If they miss they don't try to shade the results, they don't try to change the data or go back and change the model post hoc.

How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate... | Scott Adams' Blog

Great post. I have argued forever that it would want to know how well the various models agree with one another don't use the period of observed data since all of the models are tuned to mimic that data. Look at their hind casts back beyond the observational data and watch how they all diverge from one another.

 

[ibelsd]

I wrote:
There isn't a problem which means there is no need for a solution.
What we need relief from is left wing agitators.



You guys are making the claim that there's a problem, so you guys need to prove it.

You are essentially asking me to prove the negative.

How 'bout this: "There's a good probability that a boogeyman has taken up residence in your house. Boogeymen are very bad, and the best way to get rid of one is to burn your house down." I assume you didn't run right out and get a can of gas and a book of matches because you know there really isn't a boogeyman in your house, and I'm BSing you. So how do I prove CO2 isn't a problem and how do you prove there isn't a boogeyman?

Can one prove the negative? You can Google that and find Russell's Teapot and a few others examples.

The best I can do is point to a few things that cast a lot of doubt. Mostly the predictions aren't coming true.

Sea level isn't going up faster and faster.
It isn't as warm as the models say it should be by now.
The polar bears have increased their numbers.
The frequency of extreme tornadoes is down.
Hurricane frequency is about the same and down to nearly zero in the U.S.

Then there's the exaggerations, lies and propaganda:

The Climategate emails
All of those ridiculous link titles on the Numbers Watch page
The adjustments to the temperature time series that always seem to go one way.
The adjustments to the sea level time series that always seem to go one way.
The adjustments to the Argo floats after they were launched and showed cooling and now they show warming.
The claims that Antarctica is melting when it never gets above freezing most places there.
The claims that when the glaciers disappear the rivers will run dry when you know it still rains and snows there.
The claim that the deep ocean abyss is warming. For physical reasons temperature never varies below the thermocline.
The "Methane is so many times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2" meme that I've been harping about.
The ridiculous claims of multi-meter sea level rise.

And the good aspects of increased CO2 are thoroughly ignored:

CO2 via photosynthesis is the feed stock of all life on earth i.e., it needs to be there and more is better.
A warmer world with more rain, longer growing seasons, more arable land and crops that are more drought resistant are rarely mentioned.

Then there's the politics of only allowing one side of the issue to be heard. Well you wanted it to be apolitical but it isn't. The issue splits right down party lines and you know it. Or at least you should. And the politics is getting quite ugly.

WTF??? I have not asked you to prove anything. I'm just saying I am neither in the climate science cult nor in the refuse to believe in climate science cult.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I am not a non-believer either. Show me the science. Explain the science. Keep it transparent and apolitical and then I'll decide what I believe and how important an issue I believe it is.

I hope so. I wish there were more of you.

 

[Steve Case]

WTF??? I have not asked you to prove anything. I'm just saying I am neither in the climate science cult nor in the refuse to believe in climate science cult.

You said, "Show me the science" I took that to mean prove it. You don't like that? Sue me.

 

[ibelsd]

You said, "Show me the science" I took that to mean prove it. You don't like that? Sue me.

I just felt you were lumping me into one side or another when I think the extremes at both ends are fairly intellectually dishonest.

 

[Steve Case]

I just felt you were lumping me into one side or another when I think the extremes at both ends are fairly intellectually dishonest.

OK, did you have any other comment on my answer?

 

[Tim the plumber]

I am not a non-believer either. Show me the science. Explain the science. Keep it transparent and apolitical and then I'll decide what I believe and how important an issue I believe it is.

How you have started on the path to being called a denier because you will, if yopu are open minded, come to believe that there is nothing to worry about from AGW.

 

[Threegoofs]

I just felt you were lumping me into one side or another when I think the extremes at both ends are fairly intellectually dishonest.

Well, generally no one thinks the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society is 'extreme', unless you consider them extremely prominent in all things science.

I suggest you start here:

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

And most telling, see who around here whines about the link.

 

[Russell797]

Scott Adams was asked what it would take for him to believe that climate change is real.

He replied that if climate scientists are to persuade him they need to stop using climate models in a way that looks so much like it's all a scam (or hoax).

Adams is not a scientist, which he freely admits. He has no way of judging the science. But he can see that the climate model business resembles known scams. And he asks, if it's not a scam why does it look so much like a scam?

People are well aware of financial scams. One type is when you're offered an investment that has had a great return in the past, or, at least, that's what you are told. The scammers will tell you that they'll make you 20% a year on this investment. That is, they claim that they can predict future performance. But there is no economic model that can accurately predict future performance. Hence the warning: "Past performance does not guarantee future results." So it is, or should be, with climate models.

For example, there are a multitude of climate models. The scientists won't settle on one model. They tweek these models by adjusting them to match known data as they go along. Many of the models turn out to be wrong, and maybe one of them is right by chance, so the modelers claim their science if validated. But it's not science; it's a bunch of blind mice in a field of acorns. Some of them are going to find acorns. This doesn't mean the science is right.

Can't the scientists act in a way that would look more credible? Adams asks. For example, they could settle on one climate model, it's underlying assumptions and hypothesis would be well understood. Then they test it, and when they compare the prediction with the real climate data, they transparently conclude that the model is accurate or it is not. If they miss they don't try to shade the results, they don't try to change the data or go back and change the model post hoc.

How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate... | Scott Adams' Blog

The premise that climate science is dependent up modelling of climate is wrong. The scientific basis for AGW is founded on fundamental physics.

In addition to that, climate models are not predictors of real world outcome. They are what if scenarios. Input parameter are changed in order to evaluate the effect of that change on the modelled system.

Calling climate scientists scam artists or hoaxers is a denier narrative designed to force the targets to defend themselves. Scientists will not generally engage them, and are then accused of holding back and covering up. Science is the loser....and thus we all are.

 

[Russell797]

Of course that is where you stop reading. Kind of like a Christian stops reading a post that contains something about Jesus being a myth or mocking the idea that the Virgin Mary is real. The fact that this triggered you into some sort of retreat makes my point.

Why Humans Don't Have Much To Do With Climate Change*|*Lawrence Solomon
"Only evidence of man-made climate change would be considered by the IPCC, he and the others in attendance were then told. And for all intents and purposes, he soon learned, only research into man-made causes would in future be funded, published and given credibility."

Again, rather than worrying about what is settled and what is not settled, the real issue is that the science needs to be divorced from the politics. Until that happens, good luck convincing people to abandon their religion.

What a load of crap. So the world of science does not employ the full volume of evidence from geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, oceanography, glaciology, meteorology and all the other related sciences which are involved in climate science?

This is a made up charge which has no basis in fact. Deniers/opponents do that when they attack science or any issue they seek to destroy. Phony death panels and climategate are woven from the same cloth.

 

[Steve Case]

What a load of crap. So the world of science does not employ the full volume of evidence from geology,
astronomy, physics, chemistry, oceanography, glaciology, meteorology and all the other related sciences
which are involved in climate science?

This is a made up charge which has no basis in fact. Deniers/opponents do that when they attack science or
any issue they seek to destroy. Phony death panels and climategate are woven from the same cloth.

Here's the link to one of Phil Jones' juicier emails where he famously writes:

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip"​

So you are saying what? It's fake, he didn't write that. Or it doesn't mean what it looks like it means?
Or what? Why is it woven from the same cloth as the phony "Death Panels"?

 

[Russell797]

Here's the link to one of Phil Jones' juicier emails where he famously writes:

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip"​

So you are saying what? It's fake, he didn't write that. Or it doesn't mean what it looks like it means?
Or what? Why is it woven from the same cloth as the phony "Death Panels"?

What is the problem with the e-mail? They are trying to make sense of an anomalous temperature excursion. As it turns out later the explanation was that a change in the way sea water was gathered for assessment was the cause. An inconsistency in technique needed to be adjusted for.

When correspondence is taken without context you can read anything you wish into it. That e-mail was stolen and in the possession of criminals. You believe what they say about the content?

 

[longview]

The premise that climate science is dependent up modelling of climate is wrong. The scientific basis for AGW is founded on fundamental physics.

In addition to that, climate models are not predictors of real world outcome. They are what if scenarios. Input parameter are changed in order to evaluate the effect of that change on the modelled system.

Calling climate scientists scam artists or hoaxers is a denier narrative designed to force the targets to defend themselves. Scientists will not generally engage them, and are then accused of holding back and covering up. Science is the loser....and thus we all are.

The only portion of the scientific basis for AGW that is founded on fundamental physics, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a somewhat accepted response to doubling it's level,(roughly 1.2 C).
The rest is purely based on models!, The scenarios called RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways),
are based on how fast the CO2 levels will rise, not the climates sensitivity to CO2.
When the IPCC says they expect 3 C of warming from doubling the CO2 level,
only the 1.2 C is based on fundamental physics, the remaining 1.8 C is based on predicted amplified feedbacks,
which have not been validated.

 

[Threegoofs]

The only portion of the scientific basis for AGW that is founded on fundamental physics, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a somewhat accepted response to doubling it's level,(roughly 1.2 C).
The rest is purely based on models!, The scenarios called RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways),
are based on how fast the CO2 levels will rise, not the climates sensitivity to CO2.
When the IPCC says they expect 3 C of warming from doubling the CO2 level,
only the 1.2 C is based on fundamental physics, the remaining 1.8 C is based on predicted amplified feedbacks,
which have not been validated.

So you're saying when the atmosphere warms, its just a guess that water vapor will increase in the atmosphere, not supported by any science?

You're saying that other GHG, such as methane, haven't been incorporated into the models?

Fascinating, Professor. Tell us more.

 

[longview]

So you're saying when the atmosphere warms, its just a guess that water vapor will increase in the atmosphere, not supported by any science?

You're saying that other GHG, such as methane, haven't been incorporated into the models?

Fascinating, Professor. Tell us more.

Since my statement was about that modeling is used in the IPCC predictions,
thank you for confirming that!

 

[flogger]

The only portion of the scientific basis for AGW that is founded on fundamental physics, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a somewhat accepted response to doubling it's level,(roughly 1.2 C).
The rest is purely based on models!, The scenarios called RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways),
are based on how fast the CO2 levels will rise, not the climates sensitivity to CO2.
When the IPCC says they expect 3 C of warming from doubling the CO2 level,
only the 1.2 C is based on fundamental physics, the remaining 1.8 C is based on predicted amplified feedbacks,
which have not been validated.

I suspect that even that 1.2 C is a bit high based on the rise over the last century. We are also a lot further along the logarithmic curve of CO2 vs temperature now suggesting a more minor rise than the 0.7C we have seen over the last century and only then if CO2 has the significance being claimed for it

Given observatons to date it is going to be impossible to even detect the human fingerprint on temperature from normal natural variation much less quantify it and legislate for its consequences.

All thats left after that is the politics that keep this fading agenda going in the minds of the hopelessly obsessed

 

[longview]

I suspect that even that 1.2 C is a bit high based on the rise over the last century. We are also a lot further along the logarithmic curve of CO2 vs temperature now suggesting a more minor rise than the 0.7C we have seen over the last century and only then if CO2 has the significance being claimed for it

Given observatons to date it is going to be impossible to even detect the human fingerprint on temperature from normal natural variation much less quantify it and legislate for its consequences.

All thats left after that is the politics that keep this fading agenda going in the minds of the hopelessly obsessed

Yes, the 1.2 was based on the TOA energy imbalance being 4 Wm-2,
the current estimate is 3.71 Wm-2, which would put the warming number down at 1.1 C.
In Hansen 1997, He had the TOA imbalance for doubling the CO2 level at 2.62 Wm-2,
the larger number was for the tropopaus.
Radiative forcing and climate response - Hansen - 1997 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library
If the imbalance number for total energy in and out of the system is really 2.62 Wm-2,
then the direct response temperature increase would only be .79 C.
1.2 C/4 Wm-2= .3C/Wm-2, 2.62 Wm-2 X .3C/Wm-2= .79C

 

[Mach]

People are well aware of financial scams. One type is when you're offered an investment that has had a great return in the past, or, at least, that's what you are told. The scammers will tell you that they'll make you 20% a year on this investment. That is, they claim that they can predict future performance. But there is no economic model that can accurately predict future performance. Hence the warning: "Past performance does not guarantee future results." So it is, or should be, with climate models.

Scott sounds like an idiot.

His idea that "Past performance does not guarantee future results." means its a financial scam, is ignorant. All investment companies have to use that disclaimer. All of them.
So the ENTIRE stock market, and any interaction with it, is a "scam"?
*chuckle*

stuff it in the mattress scott, maybe stockpile some guns and ammo while you're at it.

 

[ibelsd]

What a load of crap. So the world of science does not employ the full volume of evidence from geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, oceanography, glaciology, meteorology and all the other related sciences which are involved in climate science?

This is a made up charge which has no basis in fact. Deniers/opponents do that when they attack science or any issue they seek to destroy. Phony death panels and climategate are woven from the same cloth.

See what you just did there? Death panels? Is that a prevalent argument used in the debate against climate change? Or are you attempting to conflate people who are questioning climate change with a political ideology hence, poisoning the well?

Again, rather than responding to the argument being made, you have taken a devotees stand. A religious stand, if you will. As such, I cannot take you any more seriously than the silly Baptists waving their bibles in the middle of my old university campus.

 

[Ikari]

Why do people with the least amount of scientific training think they know better than actual scientists? :shrug:

 

[Lord of Planar]

The premise that climate science is dependent up modelling of climate is wrong. The scientific basis for AGW is founded on fundamental physics.

OK, we need to extend that.

If we agree that 3.71 W/m^2 is the forcing increase of a doubling of CO2, then what does the math behind the physics say? Now keep in mind, I say the forcing is lower, but I will entertain the notion of 3.71 W/m^2.

The current total effect of downforcing is around 396 W/m^2. If we increase this by 3.71, we get 399.71 W/m^2.

399.71/396 = 1.009369

Temperature change to forcing is a 4th power effect.

1.009369^0.25 = 1.002334

if we assume 15 C starting... 15 + 273.15 = 288.15

288.15 x 1.002334 = 288.8225

288.8225 - 288.15 = 0.6725 degrees of warming. Now the 1.2 C is determined by closing in the imbalance at the atmospheric window.

All the assumed warming past 1.2 C required the faith, that water vapor feedback is strong. However, there is no scientific evidence that increased absolute humidity isn't cancelled out by the increased albedo caused by the extra cloud cover created.

What say you now?

In fact, the increased albedo could be stronger than the extra H2O feedback.

So...

Do you really understand the physics, or are you just reciting dogma?

In addition to that, climate models are not predictors of real world outcome. They are what if scenarios. Input parameter are changed in order to evaluate the effect of that change on the modelled system.

Yes.

"what if."

Now a major problem here is that most science papers include the high level models, and many exclude the lowe level models. Partisans with an agenda then recite the "what if" models as fact.

Calling climate scientists scam artists or hoaxers is a denier narrative designed to force the targets to defend themselves. Scientists will not generally engage them, and are then accused of holding back and covering up. Science is the loser....and thus we all are.

It isn't the scientists making these outrageous claims, except for a very small vocal handful. Well less than 1% of the climate scientists take this alarmist stance.

Again, it is the pundits, misrepresenting the scientific works.

 

[Threegoofs]

OK, we need to extend that.

If we agree that 3.71 W/m^2 is the forcing increase of a doubling of CO2, then what does the math behind the physics say? Now keep in mind, I say the forcing is lower, but I will entertain the notion of 3.71 W/m^2.

The current total effect of downforcing is around 396 W/m^2. If we increase this by 3.71, we get 399.71 W/m^2.

399.71/396 = 1.009369

Temperature change to forcing is a 4th power effect.

1.009369^0.25 = 1.002334

if we assume 15 C starting... 15 + 273.15 = 288.15

288.15 x 1.002334 = 288.8225

288.8225 - 288.15 = 0.6725 degrees of warming. Now the 1.2 C is determined by closing in the imbalance at the atmospheric window.

All the assumed warming past 1.2 C required the faith, that water vapor feedback is strong. However, there is no scientific evidence that increased absolute humidity isn't cancelled out by the increased albedo caused by the extra cloud cover created.

What say you now?

In fact, the increased albedo could be stronger than the extra H2O feedback.

So...

Do you really understand the physics, or are you just reciting dogma?


Yes.

"what if."

Now a major problem here is that most science papers include the high level models, and many exclude the lowe level models. Partisans with an agenda then recite the "what if" models as fact.


It isn't the scientists making these outrageous claims, except for a very small vocal handful. Well less than 1% of the climate scientists take this alarmist stance.

Again, it is the pundits, misrepresenting the scientific works.

Again, the NAS and Royal Society.

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Are climate changes of a few degrees
a cause for concern?

Yes. Even though an increase of a few degrees in global average temperature does not
sound like much, global average temperature during the last ice age was only about 4 to
5 °C (7 to 9 °F) colder than now. Global warming of just a few degrees will be associated
with widespread changes in regional and local temperature and precipitation as well as
with increases in some types of extreme weather events. These and other changes (such
as sea level rise and storm surge) will have serious impacts on human societies and the
natural world.

 

[Russell797]

The only portion of the scientific basis for AGW that is founded on fundamental physics, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a somewhat accepted response to doubling it's level,(roughly 1.2 C).
The rest is purely based on models!, The scenarios called RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways),
are based on how fast the CO2 levels will rise, not the climates sensitivity to CO2.
When the IPCC says they expect 3 C of warming from doubling the CO2 level,
only the 1.2 C is based on fundamental physics, the remaining 1.8 C is based on predicted amplified feedbacks,
which have not been validated.

That's right, the physical basis is the enhancement to the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The climate is warming because of that enhancement...how much it will is another story. The total tonnage of CO2 entering the atmosphere is the basis for it all, whatever the eventual outcome. Absent the initial CO2 you wouldn't have to be concerned with climate sensitivity to a small warming.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Scott Adams was asked what it would take for him to believe that climate change is real.

He replied that if climate scientists are to persuade him they need to stop using climate models in a way that looks so much like it's all a scam (or hoax).

Adams is not a scientist, which he freely admits. He has no way of judging the science. But he can see that the climate model business resembles known scams. And he asks, if it's not a scam why does it look so much like a scam?

People are well aware of financial scams. One type is when you're offered an investment that has had a great return in the past, or, at least, that's what you are told. The scammers will tell you that they'll make you 20% a year on this investment. That is, they claim that they can predict future performance. But there is no economic model that can accurately predict future performance. Hence the warning: "Past performance does not guarantee future results." So it is, or should be, with climate models.

For example, there are a multitude of climate models. The scientists won't settle on one model. They tweek these models by adjusting them to match known data as they go along. Many of the models turn out to be wrong, and maybe one of them is right by chance, so the modelers claim their science if validated. But it's not science; it's a bunch of blind mice in a field of acorns. Some of them are going to find acorns. This doesn't mean the science is right.

Can't the scientists act in a way that would look more credible? Adams asks. For example, they could settle on one climate model, it's underlying assumptions and hypothesis would be well understood. Then they test it, and when they compare the prediction with the real climate data, they transparently conclude that the model is accurate or it is not. If they miss they don't try to shade the results, they don't try to change the data or go back and change the model post hoc.

How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate... | Scott Adams' Blog

Obviously you dont accept climate change as a valid position. So what exactly is your position?