Comments on: Who/What is responsible for the "Short-Ciruiting" of the ‘Scientific Process’ regarding Global Warming?

By: Baccheus

Baccheus — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:16:59 +0000

Your editorial experience with modeling is outdated. There no way to directly experiment with climate 100 years in the future, so modeling becomes the only proxy. Rather than discard all papers using models, the role of editorial staff is to review whether the model assumptions are realistic and robust. The most important part of the peer review process is after papers are published and others have the chance to try to replicate the findings.
If you want to experimement with the climate, the closest would be to go back to the earliest models in the late 60s and see that directionally their predictions have been born out — and these were produced when very few people could even imagine concept of global warming.
The final complaint implied by your "question" is particularly interesting: the news media and other unqualified readers are finding these papers and quoting them without understanding the science or the context. Researchers are often complaining that some piece of a paper is taken and warped into something the researcher does not believe. Part of this is irresponsibility of journalists in this competitive era, part of the rising of ignorant bloggers and the many people who mistake blogging for news, and part rest on politicians who have purposely sought to confuse the public for their own political gains.
References :

By: Dr. Blob

Dr. Blob — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:30:59 +0000

It does not follow.

Pielke takes issue with the conclusion and then works bass ackwards in an attempt to discredit the research. The fact that the scientific experiment is carried out by modeling, which is foundational to science, (e.g. stonehenge, sundials… ad infinitum), invalidates neither the hypothesis nor the conclusion for one very simple reason – the models have predicted correctly. Just like the Celts predicted the next solstice.

The attempts at obfuscation are amusing.
References :

By: ~<Hunter - Warrior>~

~<Hunter - Warrior>~ — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:03:59 +0000

Most models deliberately remain conservative. The reality usually far worse.
It is alike someone in a fire tower, they can see smoke, but cannot discern the cause, extent or perhaps other details like rate of spread, ferocity, or potential. Add to the primary indicator (smoke) solid facts available to hand, like ground level wind speed and direction. Still the fireman has little information, nevertheless, a team or two are sent out to investigate and attend as necessary any problems. There is ALWAYS a sense of urgency at this stage.

There are primary actions we take in any high risk situation to avoid disaster. What you are promoting is for the "Earth-Titanic" to go faster yet, accelerate, hit the ‘berg HARDER, and sink the ship quicker.

Here’s the challenge for you; do some basic psyche and aptitude testing. Consider the results. Then realise you have the same foolish arrogance as the Captain of the Titanic. You think people respect the man for his act of mass murder? He could easily have reduced speed after the first warning, and given the ship time to maneuver.

Your tongue may be refined, eloquently making these statements, but it will not remove the criminal responsibility you have incurred via your illogical arguments.
References :

By: All Black

All Black — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:41:59 +0000

They had to sacrifice the scientific method for the greater good – if the rich countries get scared enough about global warming they will buy into a fictional market in carbon credits and transfer billions of dollars a year to poor countries in carbon off-set payments. Any good socialist would fake up science to support that – the end justifies the means!
References :

By: GreenieMax

GreenieMax — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:31:59 +0000

In response to icarus62

Sure we can’t make stars but we don’t scare people by saying hey our Sun is going to explode in 100 years if you don’t stop CO2.

If climate model is so accurate why does it predict global warming when we had the coldest winter in past 10 years? Now don’t try to tell me its because of climate change.

Global warming by itself will moderate the temperature due to rise in humidity not make it more extreme.

And as I say in my other answers, if I write my atomic theory which to me makes more sense than current atomic "Theory", people reject it because I’m a Physicist nor do I have PhD in anything. Yet when it comes to Global warming the lead person is Al Gore to explain how it will effect us?

Secondly I haven’t seen a single book explaining any climate modal they have come up with, nor are these program available online, I don’t know what formulation are being used and I don’t know how they work nor have they been made public.

If I tell you electron has – charge, I have to prove it to you, if I say stars formed in dense cloud of gas and dust I have to show it to you or its just called "Theory" its doesn’t call for "drastic" actions based on "NOTHING".

First of all Climate Change or global warming alarmist don’t call their "Unknown Stuff" as theory, they stay it as its something proven in past when no reasoning or formulation has been made public or explained to public. Secondly they are using this "Unknown unformulated unexplained theory" to make governments spend trillions of dollars and they are telling my son something which can’t be proven.

When it comes to "Theory of Evolution" its still called theory even though its quite clear if you read about it that its something very logical, very much possible, yes no one has seen it happen but we do see it on micro scale. Yet people oppose it to be taught in schools. While Global warming is not proven, its link with CO2 is not proven, all models predict complete different result and still my child is being fed with this wrong information.
References :

By: Fastermaster

Fastermaster — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:00:59 +0000

It is a sense of crisis.
After several studies demonstrated the plausibility of global warming, its history, its mechanisms, and support by various data of many fields, it came to be accepted as paradigm.
Because the media know that this issue is extremely important to many people, many reports are presented to the media before the peer review process has vetted them. You know that. Global warming is certainly not the first issue that this has happened with. I can think of cold fusion, perpetual motion, and other examples where the media have been uh… bamboozled or even cajoled… into reporting results ahead of journal publication.
That answers your question. Let’s see what we can say about your agenda.

What you have done is made the assumption that because the scientific method is not being strictly followed by your definition, that its findings are necessarily wrong, and that people are being "misinformed."

It is just as likely that even if the conclusions include some error, as many do, that they are reasonably correct and point to the need for conservation of resources, reduction of emissions, and policy action, particularly on the part of the United States and China. The Hu and Solomon papers you cite above actually do construct and test hypotheses. They present their conclusions not as fact; rather they assert them as conclusions. You know how that works. Where is the damage? Where is the attempt to mislead? Peer review does not take place only before publishing. It occurs after as well.Their reputations are on the line with readers of PNAS and GRL, not readers of Yahoo Answers, after all.

Consider also that the public can make reasonable decisions to change their lifestyles first—while being "imperfectly informed"—and wait for science to produce results that convince you personally later. It seems so quick and dirty, but really, humanity has been able to afford to make-a-mess-and-clean-it-up-later for centuries now. That might not be an option this time around. Given the high stakes in this case, it makes sense to make an effort to clean up along the way. It also pays to welcome new modes of analysis and cases in which they are applied, which seem to be what Hu and Solomon are grasping at.

I hope that Mr. Pielke will write a letter to PNAS or GRL and let his peers know his opinions. I suspect they already do.
References :

By: icarus62

icarus62 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:43:59 +0000

We can’t make stars and do experiments on them either, but cosmologists are happy to use models of stellar evolution in their work. Why would the same not be true of the climate? Climate models are becoming more sophisticated and more accurate at reproducing *past* climate, so it makes sense that we can experiment with them (rather than with the real Earth) to make predictions about future climate based on various different projections of natural and anthropogenic changes. That is the ‘doing an experiment’ part – plus of course all the work that has gone into refining the models in the first place, and testing them against the real world.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/CCSM/history.html

"If climate model is so accurate why does it predict global warming when we had the coldest winter in past 10 years?"

One cold winter in your town does not constitute a global long-term climate trend. Despite what you may have heard, global warming is proceeding unabated at about 0.2°C per decade, as you can clearly see:

https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/15ytt2008
References :