re: Scott Adams on Climate Change

quote:

---

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

---

The change in the usage has been strange, but I do think climate change is justly more encompassing beyond temperature. I feel like this is more of a media issue in the sudden usage.

quote:

---

2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

---

This cannot be be understated, and it's one of my biggest problems with the alarmist mentality.

quote:

---

3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

---

This if another problem that should be one. Most of it should be data driven, and the few times judgements are necessary, they should be evaluated by the data and the accuracy of the predictions. Like science is intended, this should work self correcting. I'm just not sure it is in this case unfortunately.

quote:

---

4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.

---

And this is patently unscientific, and should not be tolerated. Besides opinions are essentially irrelevant to science. Who cares about a consensus?

quote:

---

5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.

---

And like any model, thesr should be evaluated by the accuracy of the models and their variables. If they don't that's another problem of poor science.

quote:

---

6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

---

I guess this depends on "what the other side is."

If it's "I'm skeptical of the extent of human contribution and the predictions of warming and implications, then that's credible.

If it's "there is no warming" then that's not very credible.

quote:

---

As I have described in this blog before, I’m a trained hypnotist and I have studied the methods of persuasion for years.

---

Some great and valid criticisms, of poor science in general, but when he gets talking about "hypnosis" it starts to move away from the objective.

I wish he would have stuck to those valid criticisms and save the subjective psychology for a different discussion. It's not without merit, but it conflate the objective problem with the subjective causes of it.

quote:

---

If it's "there is no warming" then that's not very credible.

---

How can the planet getting warmer, make it colder? THAT'S ALL THE frick I WANT TO KNOW.

quote:

---

2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

This cannot be be understated, and it's one of my biggest problems with the alarmist mentality.

---

This. Not meant as a slight to our scientists, but there are still so many things that we can't really even calculate or factor in regarding how our climate works that stating with absolute certainty one way or the other is pure folly. We are still discovering new things about how it works all the time.

quote:

---

Do you have link to that? That's news to me, so I would be curious to see this.

---

I believe this was what he was talking about it. The statements are vague, but troubling regardless.

LINK

quote:

---

Just because things can change without human input, doesn't mean that they can't change due to human input. 

---

Correct, but while that is true and could be the case, why this wasn't made an air quality issue is beyond me. Hell, I think everyone could get on board with fewer pollutants in their air. But alas, it morphed into some politicized issue of good vs. evil. It was never anyone's intention to make a cleaner environment a joint effort. This has been nothing short of a political grandstand coupled with a power grab. The world was never going to end because of this, and instead of slowly implementing changes while technology caught up, it was made to seem like we're all going to die and you're a dumb piece of shite if you don't agree and drive a Prius. I've concluded working together and living harmoniously is never the intention.

quote:

---

Adams was ridiculed as a liberal in the pizza thread...I wonder what he will be labeled now...this board and its orthodoxy.

---

Depends upon how he answers this question:

How can the planet getting warmer, make it colder? THAT'S ALL THE frick I WANT TO KNOW

quote:

---

Modeling is not science

---

Bullsart it isn't.

What isn't scientific is taking model results as absolute truth and without regard to the inputs, residuals, and relative uncertanties.

That is NOT what most modelers do. That is (however) what evangelist climate "modelers" do.

Don't blame this garbage on all of us.

quote:

---

Models that can't even predict what has already happened aren't good models

---

Clearly true in most cases. But in climate "modeling" hid casting errors of 5-10C is good enough calibration to predict 100 years out in 0.1C accuracy. It's a "special" science

quote:

---

Don't blame this garbage on all of us.

---

Yeah somebody doing something poorly doesn't mean that something is the problem.