Why Do Climate Scientists Act So Much Like Con Artists?

flogger said:

OK we can approach this from a different angle then. What is the optimum level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? No one talks about it because no one knows. We do know the rising level of carbon dioxide has caused plants to grow faster (the earth is getting greener) causing real (inflation-adjusted) food prices to fall, which has been a great benefit to the world’s poor.

If we cannot define our target level for carbon dioxide, why are we spending trillions of dollars to reduce it, when even those in governments admit that all of the measures they are proposing will cause a fraction of 1 degree temperature reduction in a century ...... if they are right of course ?

Click to expand...

How many times must I explain this to you? We're not targeting a particular level of CO2 as an "optimum."

We want to fiddle with these dials as little as possible. Because as you guys always point out, we don't understand them entirely. It's like you're asking "if we don't know which way to drive this car, why are we stopping!?"

Present evidence of this causal link between CO2 levels and food prices.

Deuce said:

How many times must I explain this to you? We're not targeting a particular level of CO2 as an "optimum."

Click to expand...

OK what level of temperature are we targeting as optimum then ? If there are no targets then why are we bothering about any of this ?

We want to fiddle with these dials as little as possible. Because as you guys always point out, we don't understand them entirely. It's like you're asking "if we don't know which way to drive this car, why are we stopping!?"

Click to expand...

But its wholesale root and branch reconfiguration of our entire energy generating infrastructure thats being demanded here on the off chance that it will make the slightest difference whatsoever to temperatures. Its not just simple fiddling around edges so its pretty important we have a target and that that target is even possible given the trillions that this will cost and the lives that will be unavoidably lost as a consequence of artificially higher energy prices

Present evidence of this causal link between CO2 levels and food prices.

Click to expand...

More CO2 = more food. More food = lower prices. Its basic supply and demand its not exactly rocket science

More CO2 Means More Plant Growth

flogger said:

OK what level of temperature are we targeting as optimum then ? If there are no targets then why are we bothering about any of this ?

Click to expand...

...what part of minimizing human influence and letting nature do its thing is so hard to understand for "skeptics?" Nobody is suggesting a permanently static climate. We can't stop the sun from changing its output, we can't stop orbital mechanics, we can't stop volcanoes. (We might be able to stop a large asteroid impact, we still have Bruce Willis around) These things will continue to influence the earth's climate.

But its wholesale root and branch reconfiguration of our entire energy generating infrastructure thats being demanded here on the off chance that it will make the slightest difference whatsoever to temperatures. Its not just simple fiddling around edges so its pretty important we have a target and that that target is even possible given the trillions that this will cost and the lives that will be unavoidably lost as a consequence of artificially higher energy prices

Click to expand...

I wholesale reject the accuracy of this paragraph.

More CO2 = more food. More food = lower prices. Its basic supply and demand its not exactly rocket science

More CO2 Means More Plant Growth

Click to expand...

The real world is more complicated than "more co2 more food."

Deuce said:

...what part of minimizing human influence and letting nature do its thing is so hard to understand for "skeptics?"

Click to expand...

The part where that means bare existence for many humans becomes untenable due to wayward policies designed to tackle something we cannot even quantify

I wholesale reject the accuracy of this paragraph.

Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong

The real world is more complicated than "more co2 more food."

Click to expand...

But more CO2 does mean more food

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

flogger said:

The part where that means bare existence for many humans becomes untenable due to wayward policies designed to tackle something we cannot even quantify

Click to expand...

It only makes bare existence untenable if you do it badly.

Then you would be wrong

Click to expand...

Then tell me how you calculated the odds of the prevailing opinion of climate scientists being wrong. You called it an "off chance" of a "slight impact." Quantify that.

But more CO2 does mean more food

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

Click to expand...

Again, the real world is more complicated than that.

As one example of many, plants improve growth with an increase in temperature... to a limit. Exceeding that threshold significantly drops crop yield.

LowDown said:

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

Click to expand...

Not a scientist? End of conversation. Scientific research is constant doubt. Just be comforted that no Matter how many models. 90 % of them believe it's real.
So many deniars are shrinks and everything but climate guys

Deuce said:

It only makes bare existence untenable if you do it badly.

Click to expand...

By making everything artificially more expensive it is unavoidable

Then tell me how you calculated the odds of the prevailing opinion of climate scientists being wrong. You called it an "off chance" of a "slight impact." Quantify that.

Click to expand...

How do you quantify the political spin being put on that ?

Again, the real world is more complicated than that.
As one example of many, plants improve growth with an increase in temperature... to a limit. Exceeding that threshold significantly drops crop yield.

Click to expand...

Well given the optimum level of CO2 for most crops is around 1300 PPM and cold is far more detrimental than heat for yields we are clearly a very long way from any such threshold

LowDown said:

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

Click to expand...

Money.

LowDown said:

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

Click to expand...

The whole process of tweaking the models to make them produce the results that are being requested was what changed my mind on AGW. In the early 90's, the climate researchers found out that their primary projection was grossly overstating the impact that solar radiation had on their model. They corrected that mistake and suddenly their projections showed even warmer temps. I asked myself how it was possible to take energy out of a system and end with more in it than before. Something started to stink and the more I studied this subject, the smellier it got...

LowDown said:

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

Click to expand...

One cannot use rational argument to persuade the irrational. That much has been proven.

[h=2]What leads to bias in the scientific literature? New study tries to answer[/h][FONT=&quot]without comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] By now, most of our readers are aware that some fields of science have a reproducibility problem. Part of the problem, some argue, is the publishing community’s bias toward dramatic findings — namely, studies that show something has an effect on something else are more likely to be published than studies that don’t.
Many have argued that scientists such data because that’s what is rewarded — by journals and, indirectly, by funders and employers, who judge a scientist based on his or her publication record. But a new meta-analysis in PNAS is saying it’s a bit more complicated than that.
In a paper released today, researchers led by Daniele Fanelli and John Ioannidis — both at Stanford University — suggest that the so-called “pressure-to-publish” does not appear to bias studies toward larger so-called “effect sizes.” Instead, the researchers argue that other factors were a bigger source of bias than the pressure-to-publish, namely the use of small sample sizes (which could contain a skewed sample that shows stronger effects), and relegating studies with smaller effects to the “gray literature,” such as conference proceedings, PhD theses, and other less publicized formats.
However, Ferric Fang of the University of Washington — who did not participate in the study — approached the findings with some caution:
Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]

As long as we're pasting favorite cartoons up here, you've hit two of my favorites and here's two more:



and

Deuce said:

Um, not remotely true. They succesfully "hindcast" all the time.

Click to expand...

Onlt after they input arbitary fiddle factors.

Tim the plumber said:

Onlt after they input arbitary fiddle factors.

Click to expand...

So they can hindcast succesfully eh ? Everybody would be able to win the lottery by doing that surely :lamo

Deuce said:

How many times must I explain this to you? We're not targeting a particular level of CO2 as an "optimum."

We want to fiddle with these dials as little as possible. Because as you guys always point out, we don't understand them entirely. It's like you're asking "if we don't know which way to drive this car, why are we stopping!?"

Present evidence of this causal link between CO2 levels and food prices.

Click to expand...

When you are driving a car towards a land of riches and plenty why should you listen to the fool at the back who the rest of us have decieded not to let drive because he is an abject incompetant coward who is scared of his own shaddow or out to destroy us all, not sure which, about the cliff edge you are about to drive over that you cannot actually see?

I think the real clue that there is something shady with the whole climate change movement is the constant use of the term "denier" and "skeptics" with the word skeptics in quotes. There is some consensus that the climate has shifted. There is not as much agreement on the exact cause. There is further disagreement on the correct solution.

I can agree with the general idea of global climate change and I can agree with the theory that is caused by human behavior. I can still disagree on the solution. I can even disagree with the notion that a viable solution presently exists. As someone else noted in this thread, a treaty to limit greenhouse gasses among signatory nations would only offer minimal relief at a cost which which would be extraordinary. And here is where I think climate change has morphed into something akin to a cult (or a scam).

You have the scientific community which needs money to research. You have certain interest groups which have latched themselves to the global warming hysteria in an interest to fund their own ideologies. So, in order to keep the money flowing, they need to constantly keep the panic level high. Like any good salesman (con-man), you have to insert urgency. There is no reason to believe that climate change is based entirely on fraud. In fact, there is every reason to believe that it exists and that man has, in some part, contributed to it. Like any good scam, though, the lie is much more subtle and damaging than the truth. The lie is that this global warming can be corrected or halted through government regulations that restrict economic growth and free market policies in some nations where economic output is highest. Conveniently, this aligns with the economic justice crowd's stated goal to redirect funds from 1st world nations to less developed nations.

I think that if global change scientists want to be taken seriously then they need to clearly separate themselves from the merry band of progressive losers that have latched onto this issue for their own ideological (and economic) gain. Let's spin this another way. If the Koch brothers were the ones advocating for global climate change policy, don't you think there would be a healthy amount of skepticism from the left? If the solutions posited by the Koch brothers were dominating the media, don't you think left-wing organizations would be attacking, not just the policy, but the science behind it? Of course they would. When a Republican recently said people may have to forego the latest iphone to buy health care insurance, everyone on the left freaked out and called it insensitive and awful. When Obama said basically the same thing a year ago the left barely made a peep. The danger of mixing science and ideology is that, in this day and age, politics are close to religion and you may be able to get people to agree on the science, but there is no way in hell you'll get them to disavow their politics. You'd think, for a really, super big important issue that's threatening their children's lives, the left would leave politics at the door....

ibelsd said:

...There is further disagreement on the correct solution ... I can still
disagree on the solution. I can even disagree with the notion that a
viable solution presently exists. As someone else noted in this thread,
a treaty to limit greenhouse gasses among signatory nations would
only offer minimal relief

Click to expand...

There isn't a problem which means there is no need for a solution.

What we need relief from is left wing agitators.

ibelsd said:

I think the real clue that there is something shady with the whole climate change movement is the constant use of the term "denier" and "skeptics" with the word skeptics in quotes. There is some consensus that the climate has shifted. There is not as much agreement on the exact cause...

Click to expand...

is where I stopped reading.

This is close to unanimous agreement among climate scientists (the number of dissenters can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand) that human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for the current rapid increase in the mean global temperature. There is also widespread agreement on this point among scientists in general, with every single national and international scientific organisation on the planet supporting this view. It is simply false to assert otherwise.

Deuce said:

What is there to address? Some blogger who admittedly doesn't understand the models has a bunch of complaints about the models. That would be like me whining about the design of my car's engine. Why is the oil filler cap on the top? They're just trying to get me to put more oil aka money into it, the scammers!!!

Click to expand...

I think he does understand how models work in the climate industrial complex. When their models turn out wrong they take real number and jam them into the present model and then say they are accurate. It would be like me saying I predicted the football score for Monday Night Football on Tuesday.

Surface Detail said:

is where I stopped reading.

This is close to unanimous agreement among climate scientists (the number of dissenters can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand) that human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for the current rapid increase in the mean global temperature. There is also widespread agreement on this point among scientists in general, with every single national and international scientific organisation on the planet supporting this view. It is simply false to assert otherwise.

Click to expand...

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.

Steve Case said:

There isn't a problem which means there is no need for a solution.

What we need relief from is left wing agitators.

Click to expand...

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.

ibelsd said:

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.

Click to expand...

I stopped reading because your statement is simply incorrect. As I said, there is close to unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for the current rapid increase in the mean global temperature. There is no point in reading your post any further because your subsequent statements are based on a falsehood.

Surface Detail said:

I stopped reading because your statement is simply incorrect. As I said, there is close to unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for the current rapid increase in the mean global temperature. There is no point in reading your post any further because your subsequent statements are based on a falsehood.

Click to expand...

And if scientific fact were decided on by vote you might have a case

Surface Detail said:

I stopped reading because your statement is simply incorrect. As I said, there is close to unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for the current rapid increase in the mean global temperature. There is no point in reading your post any further because your subsequent statements are based on a falsehood.

Click to expand...

Two responses.
1. As flogger noted, since when has science been democratic?
2. You are still missing the larger points of my post.