OT: Speculation about AGW theories

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:32:42 -0500, "Dennis Woos" <[Registered users can see links. ]>
wrote:


The model code and the input data are published and available. If he's
so sure that this fraud is occurring, he can verify it for himself. My
guess, however, is that he's never even read one of the primary papers
providing model results- it's pretty clear he doesn't understand the
models even at a conceptual level.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
[Registered users can see links. ]

On Jan 24, 8:32 am, "Dennis Woos" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:

There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy, only a few researchers who
might be mistaken in, or misled by, their conclusions, which
conclusions then become a convenient excuse for politicians and others
with political motivations to enact laws and levy taxes on the rest of
us.

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
newseqol5tnljrqefk6ic3ivcfnjv7757m459@4ax.com...

I see. You can't or won't answer my question, but do have time for an
ad-hominem attack.

Classic Peterson.

"Dennis Woos" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:ybWdnZDtdJuN0cHWnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@posted.green mountainaccess...

I see no conspiracy at all, and have absolutely no idea what you are talking
about.



So, when they put together these climate models that "predict" the last 150
years climate, did the researchers know roughly what the past climate was
and adjust their model until it fitted?

Do you know ?

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:58:47 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<[Registered users can see links. ].au> wrote:


Get the code. Get the data. Run the models. Then, if you can demonstrate
some sort of error or fraud, let us know. Making accusations and asking
somebody else to do the work for you is intellectually dishonest.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
[Registered users can see links. ]

On Jan 24, 10:58 am, "Peter Webb"
<[Registered users can see links. ].au> wrote:

You can't really "predict" the past, only infer it from scientific
evidence, or from records and observations made at the time. A model
which gives correct "predictions" of what happened 100 tears ago would
still be a faulty model if it gave incorrect "predictions" of what
happened at other times.

The value of GOOD science lies in its predictive value. If a model
can't even predict the near future very well, then it must not be used
as a basis for political and economic decisions. Even if it DOES
predict the near future it should be taken with a large grain of salt,
since it might have been right for the wrong reason.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:41:59 -0800 (PST), [Registered users can see links. ] wrote:


No, it wouldn't, anymore than Newtonian gravity is "wrong" because it
fails to describe observations in the relativistic realm. Climate
operates across a continuum of time scales, and across a geographic
continuum. Models are designed for specific regimes. What a
meteorologist uses to predict the weather (the shortest climate range)
in some particular geographic region is different from what a
climatologist uses to examine global temperature over a century, and
different yet from what a paleoclimatologist uses to study climate over
millions of years. None of the models are "wrong", but clearly all must
be properly applied over the conditions they were designed for.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
[Registered users can see links. ]

On Jan 24, 11:07 am, Chris L Peterson <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:

I remember reading a few months ago about someone who wanted the data
under a FOIA, but was unable to obtain it.


Yes, reproducible results and a falsifiable theory, that would be
science, or at least a step in that direction.


He probably has other work to do. His taxes probably support the work
of scientists. Governments want to tax him even more. He has a right
to ask questions.

On Jan 24, 11:54 am, Chris L Peterson <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:

The "other times" I mentioned would be say 150 years ago, or 50 years
ago, etc., not 101 years ago or 99 years ago, or the day before
yesterday, or 3 million years ago. You need to improve your reading
comprehension.

Obviously, if a model was correct for a time 20 years ago, incorrect
for a time 40 years ago, one would have no reason to believe any
predictions that it makes about conditions 20 years from now.
Tweaking it to be correct for both 20 years ago and 40 years ago
doesn't help; we still have to wait and see what happens. Even so, it
might still be right for the wrong reasons.

The models in question cover the recent century or so. Even so, if
the temperatures have been generally rising since the last ice age, or
even during the last few centuries, that info needs to be considered
before using a model to support something such as AGW.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:54:44 -0800 (PST), [Registered users can see links. ] wrote:


For one particular study, maybe? The code for most models is published,
and the vast majority of raw climate data is also published and freely
available.



Sure, he has the right. He has the right to make a fool of himself as
well. "Uh... I don't know how to find the data. I don't know how to
analyze the data. I have a suspicion that the results of the models are
falsified. Can somebody do the work and tell me if that's the case?"
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
[Registered users can see links. ]