Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Been looking at pieces of the latest White House report and came across this explanation in the "Frequently Asked Questions' Section:

Scientists have amassed a vast body of knowledge regarding the physical world. Unlike many areas of science, however, scientists who study the Earth’s climate cannot build a “con- trol Earth” and conduct experiments on this Earth in a lab. To experiment with the Earth, scientists instead use this accumu- lated knowledge to build climate models, or “virtual Earths.” In studying climate change, these virtual Earths serve as an im- portant way to integrate different kinds of knowledge of how the climate system works.

I know a lot of you guys think I'm being excessively contrarian. But that is a huge issue when it comes to asking people to dramatically change their lifestyles, suffer immediate economic hardship, etc.

It's like saying that you're going to do a clinical trial to approve a new drug but instead of doing it with real people you're going to construct "virtual people" in a super computer and give them the new drug in a "virtual sense" to see what the computer models say it's going to do in terms of safety and effectiveness.

But at least they are hinting at the problem with climate "science." I give them credit for that.

P.S., the reason I put "science" in quotes like that is that if you're really strict about it climate study is not science. Science requires controlled experiments on the actual thing; not model simulations. It's really, in the strictest sense, climate observational study.

And I'm not making that up people. I'm really not.

Oh...I haven't figured out how to link directly to the quote I used. You have to go to http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report#section-1946" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, click on "FAQs," then do a search on "How reliable are the computer models of the Earth’s climate?" That should bring you to the discussion on page 820.

Theoretical science with models and simulations are not strictly "science" if you want to use the extremely narrow definition.

However, models and simulations create predictions that can be tested by experimental science. A large part of the major advances in modern science are experimental tests on theoretical simulations.

Simply building a computer simulation and saying "oh. this is what my computer simulation says. this is clearly the way the world works" - is shitty science. I agree with you.

But, building a computer simulation and confirming the predictions of the model through experimentation is real science. Even by your strictest definition.

Skjellyfetti wrote:
But, building a computer simulation and confirming the preddictions of the model through experimentation is real science. Even by your strictest definition.

Yet, repeatedly, the recorded data DOES NOT validate the models. In response, recording stations which DID NOT support the model were eliminated from the sampling set, and regions which produced data supporting the model had additional stations added.
Datasets contradicting the models (Anglia, AQUA, to name two) have coincidentally vanished or been "lost".

The discrepancies found in the AGW theory are too many to be ignored.

Politically driven name calling, debate by shout-down, hyper-focused discrediting of skeptics, in the absence of real debate and scientific study, is merely propoganda.

Jelly, I realize you genuinely believe in the AGW theory, but the models are flawed...and like JSO observed, there's too much at stake to force everyone back into the stone age when all the "evidence" points to this "threat" being more of a political fabrication than an actual problem.

Damn, it's hot outside today.

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
But, building a computer simulation and confirming the preddictions of the model through experimentation is real science. Even by your strictest definition.

Yet, repeatedly, the recorded data DOES NOT validate the models. In response, recording stations which DID NOT support the model were eliminated from the sampling set, and regions which produced data supporting the model had additional stations added.
Datasets contradicting the models (Anglia, AQUA, to name two) have coincidentally vanished or been "lost".

The discrepancies found in the AGW theory are too many to be ignored.

Politically driven name calling, debate by shout-down, hyper-focused discrediting of skeptics, in the absence of real debate and scientific study, is merely propoganda.

Jelly, I realize you genuinely believe in the AGW theory, but the models are flawed...and like JSO observed, there's too much at stake to force everyone back into the stone age when all the "evidence" points to this "threat" being more of a political fabrication than an actual problem.

Let's not forget how much research funding is out there on the AGW side of the equation coupled with professors who need to pay for grad students with research grants and you get a whole lot of biased information.

We don't want to even start with the problems peer reviewing has been having.

My theory is, pollution in any form can't be good......

However, models and simulations create predictions that can be tested by experimental science. A large part of the major advances in modern science are experimental tests on theoretical simulations.

Simply building a computer simulation and saying "oh. this is what my computer simulation says. this is clearly the way the world works" - is shitty science. I agree with you.

But, building a computer simulation and confirming the predictions of the model through experimentation is real science. Even by your strictest definition.

The problem is that in climate study there can be no controlled experimentation to test the hypotheses associated with the big questions. Yes, if they could confirm the model predictions through experimentation it would be real science. But they can't.

A controlled experiment with respect to this issue would be something like this:

We have four Earth-like planets that don't have any human influence. We randomly select two to be assigned to the treatment of introducing humans who do all the fossil fuel stuff and the other two serve as controls. No humans. We introduce the humans to the two randomly selected treatment planets and see if what our models say is going to happen happens to them but not to the controls.

Obviously we can't do that. And doing something like what's described in the answer to that FAQ where they say the current models explain what's happened over the past 50 years to a reasonable extinct is not doing it. That's not an experiment. That's observational study. As long as you're not controlling the treatment as well as setting up controls from which you make sure the treatment is withheld you are not conducting an experiment.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Theoretical science with models and simulations are not strictly "science" if you want to use the extremely narrow definition.

However, models and simulations create predictions that can be tested by experimental science. A large part of the major advances in modern science are experimental tests on theoretical simulations.

Simply building a computer simulation and saying "oh. this is what my computer simulation says. this is clearly the way the world works" - is shitty science. I agree with you.

But, building a computer simulation and confirming the predictions of the model through experimentation is real science. Even by your strictest definition.

Really? Remember when sea levels were going to rise 20 feet by 2020? That was a "model" that was being widely used as well....Very few "predictions" have come to pass from the climate change models. THey've got a LOT of work to do....

I was just addressing JSOs opinion on "science."

JohnStOnge wrote: Science requires controlled experiments on the actual thing; not model simulations.

Global Warming is boring and has been rehashed 1000x on here and it's not like any of us are going to change each others minds on that.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I was just addressing JSOs opinion on "science."

JohnStOnge wrote: Science requires controlled experiments on the actual thing; not model simulations.

Global Warming is boring and has been rehashed 1000x on here and it's not like any of us are going to change each others minds on that.

Well, at least those of us with a grasp on science.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I was just addressing JSOs opinion on "science."

JohnStOnge wrote: Science requires controlled experiments on the actual thing; not model simulations.

Global Warming is boring and has been rehashed 1000x on here and it's not like any of us are going to change each others minds on that.

Exactly, you believers are worse than the worst religious zealots and the rest us have a brain and understand the requirements of science.

Wanna' have some fun?

Record the 5-7 day forecast of your local station...and then see how accurate they are.

But, wait...this global theory is MUCH more accurate.



All you need to know about Climate Change is to watch the TV azz clowns talk about how bad things have gotten lately. More tornadoes, and stronger ones, due to Global Warming...with zero credible science behind it.

Rich people running around using up tons of resources and telling other people to stop using resources. You can't make this up.

Immunology and black holes are also

settled science

too bad you cant get gobs of money from the gubmint to study causes of climate change not related to cow farts and SUVs

What I have pointed out before is how many of you who oppose AGW, totally back down when it concerns Evolution. Another "consensus" theory that many are now saying needs to be retooled, especially in light of their phylogenetic failures.

Simple stuff.

VictorG wrote:My theory is, pollution in any form can't be good......

The argument is simply to what extent it is .

Cluck U wrote:Wanna' have some fun?

Record the 5-7 day forecast of your local station...and then see how accurate they are.

But, wait...this global theory is MUCH more accurate.



All you need to know about Climate Change is to watch the TV azz clowns talk about how bad things have gotten lately. More tornadoes, and stronger ones, due to Global Warming...with zero credible science behind it.

Rich people running around using up tons of resources and telling other people to stop using resources. You can't make this up.

Weather has a huge impact on my business and NOAA forecasts are amazingly accurate for both the 7 day and the 6-10 and 8-14 day climate predictions. They're pretty fucking good at it these days.

If Mitt Romney came out with this report, JSO would be all over it like JSO on a 12 yr old girl.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I was just addressing JSOs opinion on "science."



Global Warming is boring and has been rehashed 1000x on here and it's not like any of us are going to change each others minds on that.

Exactly, you believers are worst than the worst religious zealots and the rest us have a brain and understand the requirements of science.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly, you believers are worst than the worst religious zealots and the rest us have a brain and understand the requirements of science.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

Especially now that there are 7-8 billion people's worth of pollutants.

I think these global warming people are focusing on the wrong issues.

How about we kill two birds with one stone, state government deficits & clean air. How about EVERY state requires all vehicles be inspected ANNUALLY and have to pass an emission inspection. Pennsylvania has done this for years but I'm floored that other states range from every other or third year to zero inspections.....

And you wonder why those states have budget deficits......

bluehenbillk wrote:I think these global warming people are focusing on the wrong issues.

How about we kill two birds with one stone, state government deficits & clean air. How about EVERY state requires all vehicles be inspected ANNUALLY and have to pass an emission inspection. Pennsylvania has done this for years but I'm floored that other states range from every other or third year to zero inspections.....

And you wonder why those states have budget deficits......

I'm actually for car inspections. There are some vehicles that shouldn't be on the road.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly, you believers are worst than the worst religious zealots and the rest us have a brain and understand the requirements of science.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

It's called the cycle of life, young grashopper....

If every human on the earth dropped dead tomorrow, in just a few short centuries (or less), you would hardly be able to tell we were ever here.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly, you believers are worst than the worst religious zealots and the rest us have a brain and understand the requirements of science.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

^^^^ This right here


You are absolutely correct. You WOULD think that

and it is certainly being explored from many angles

but the problem many people have is that 'ridiculous assumptions' have nothing to do with the scientific method


cue Houndawg to say something cute and unrelated

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly, you believers are worst than the worst religious zealots and the rest us have a brain and understand the requirements of science.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

Going from "some sort of adverse effect" to "catastrophic consequences" is quite the leap.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume all of the chemicals and pollutants humans put into the environment aren't going to have some sort of adverse effect.

^^^^ This right here


You are absolutely correct. You WOULD think that

and it is certainly being explored from many angles

but the problem many people have is that 'ridiculous assumptions' have nothing to do with the scientific method


cue Houndawg to say something cute and unrelated

I'm not talking about the methods or research involved in climate science. I'm talking about what seems to be common sense. Are you suggesting 150+ years of industry has had little to no effect on our environment, regardless of the scale (local vs global)?