@TMTisFree

Quote:

The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of (1) a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations, (2) serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and (3) cost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives such as doing nothing. [...] We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the forecasting procedures used to forecast global mean temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) –leg “1” of the stool. This audit found that the procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles. We also did an audit of the forecasting procedures used for two papers that were designed to support proposed regulation related to protecting polar bears – leg “3” of the stool. On average, these procedures violated 85% of the 90 relevant principles. The warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures. Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. Such an appeal to “voting” is contrary to the scientific method. It is also incorrect. We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts based on the assumption that there would be no interventions. This test found that the errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts (91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence-based “no change” model. Based on our analyses, we concluded that the global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement. We then turned to the “structured analogies” method to forecast the likely outcomes of this movement. In this ongoing study, we have, to date, identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts for the analogous alarms proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the government impost regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.

From Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm
Testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Environment - Committee on Science, Space and Technology – March 31, 2011 (Rev) by Professor J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania, with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Note the "Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. Such an appeal to “voting” is contrary to the scientific method." Which means: one can't accept consensus in Science.

Quote:

Our findings on the scientific evidence related to global warming forecasts lead to the following recommendations: 1. End government funding for climate change research 2. End government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy; CO2 reduction; habitat loss) 3. End government programs and repeal regulations predicated on global warming 4. End government support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated on global warming

Devastating.

Edit: link not working

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Apr-2011 at 10:07 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote: The same sort of hypothetical sensitivity analysis can be conducted with technologies based on existing solar power plants. The Cloncurry Solar Thermal Power Plant in Queensland is expected to provide 10 MW of electricity when completed (Renewable Energy Development, 2008). One quad (at 33% efficiency) of energy implies 3333 Cloncurry plants. Providing 3.8 quads implies 12,667 Cloncurry equivalent plants, or about 24 such plants [or 80 Lake Cargelligo plants] coming online every week from 2010 to 2020. From Roger A. Pielke Jr, 2011 An evaluation of the targets and timetables of proposed Australian emissions reduction policies, Environmental Science & Policy 14, 20 – 27. The inescapable conclusion: Australia is Wonderland.

If you're always skeptical of science let's take the view that way. The 2011 paper is the hypothesis from Pielke. Once implemented we'll be able to tell how more or less correct Pielke is in his prediction.

The conclusion can't be drawn as it's an untested hypothesis.

@BrianK

Quote:

Once implemented we'll be able to tell how more or less correct Pielke is in his prediction.

Actually the hypothesis/prediction is by the Australian government (reducing CO² emissions by half in 2020 = no more coal in 2020). Pielke only did an energy conversion calculation to put the challenge in perspective. I guess we will not still be here to discuss it in 2020 though.

You may prefer the conclusion of the author: Quote:

[A] focus on targets and timetables for emissions reduction that will be impossible to meet in practical policy implementation runs the risk of engendering public cynicism and even opposition.

Oh wait...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Your link 'Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm' does not work.

Also, your vested interest is showing.

edit - its OK, I found the article in question. Still awaiting peer-review, I see.

Last edited by T-J on 04-Apr-2011 at 11:54 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

Your link 'Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm' does not work.

Corrected, thanks.

Quote:

Also, your vested interest is showing.

I show no politically correct manner: challenging pseudo-scientific dogma (some call it 'consensus') in public. What are your green credentials btw? Just kidding

Quote:

edit - its OK, I found the article in question. Still awaiting peer-review, I see.

The broken link was to a recent testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Environment based on this article you found it seems.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

On Pielke I'd agree that the Australian Gov made a prediction and is working to carry forth the testing of that prediction. Pielke also made a prediction, one different than the gov. The problem I see is Pielke isn't working to test his predictions. Luckily the Gov will do it for him. In order to build substance predictions must be tested. At this point either entity lacks substance.

Quote:

1. End government funding for climate change research 2. End government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy

Taking these backwards.. On (2) alternative energy has more implications than CO2 improvements. It can increase a nation's self sufficiencies. Also, it's typically a pollution improvement. And (1) is just sad. Without funding research doesn't exist. Certainly Pielke got paid somehow, for an example. It appears the final answer for this group is that the science must stop. This idea is wrong.

And certainly I'd expect you to not support (1). You claimed 'consensus' stopped science. And you claimed that stopping science would be wrong and this is why consesus is wrong. You seeming support their conclusion which stops science? If science doesn't know the answer the better alternative would be to keep science working on the questions. If we don't know that CO2 isn't causing anything then we should invest even more. Afterall we have 1 planet it'd be good to figure out how it works.

@T-J

I read the article you linked. It will wait forever to be peer reviewed via any scientifically credible publication. For one the ladies clearly know no climate science and simply accept the views of their inexpert advisors, merchants of doubt no less or professional denialists as Micheal Mann labels them. With their input (see the acknowlegements) it is no wonder they claim that scientists from Arhennius to Stephen Schneider are simply alarmists with no evidence to lend substance to their claims and smears to boot! They accept assurances that climate scientists predictions have never been realized. But these insubstantial claims and the professional ignorance displayed is not what this pretend paper is about.

Before Stephen Schneider died (19 July 2010) he co-authored a paper on "Expert credibility in climate change". Of course the merchants of doubt were annoyed as they didn't get a good review. Through a post on WUWT one of them mobilised about 40 death threats per week against Schneider in the last few weeks of his life. He is not the only one to suffer this tactic which he found deeply disturbing. This "paper" is the denialists answer.

If you are not already familiar with Schneider's credibility paper, I invite you to peruse this published paper by Schneider et al and make the comparisons:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract

It can be downloaded for free as a pdf.

but also look at the "Expert Credibility in Climate Change - Responses to Comments" published on realclimate after Schneider's death (3rd August 2010):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/expert-credibility-in-climate-change-responses-to-comments/

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 05-Apr-2011 at 01:24 PM.
Last edited by NoelFuller on 05-Apr-2011 at 01:23 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

On Pielke I'd agree that the Australian Gov made a prediction and is working to carry forth the testing of that prediction. Pielke also made a prediction, one different than the gov. The problem I see is Pielke isn't working to test his predictions. Luckily the Gov will do it for him. In order to build substance predictions must be tested. At this point either entity lacks substance.

I see Dr Pielke's paper more as a reasonable (given his assumptions) 'translation' of Australian's government prediction in term of data coming from energy productions we use and know today.

Quote:

And (1) is just sad. Without funding research doesn't exist. Certainly Pielke got paid somehow, for an example. It appears the final answer for this group is that the science must stop. This idea is wrong.

Their 2 statements would have been surely more clearer if restricted to the point they made in their article, namely unsupported AGW alarmism.

Quote:

And certainly I'd expect you to not support (1).

Yes, they will hopefully correct it: the article seems to have already undergone many revisions (I see a v14 somewhere, and linked to the last available v17) and T-J gave a link from a 2009 draft.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Global Warming Critic changes sides Richard Muller has been a long time critic of Global Warming. Example Recently the Republicans funded Muller's UC Berkley group to do a statistical analysis on Climate Change. The hope, of course, was this group would find major errors. Anthony Watts was one proponent of Muller's work and stated in his blog he'd support Muller no matter the outcome. (Yeah that line was a setup.)

Turns out Muller's group found Climate Change to be..."excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups". Which of course shocked the anti-GW crowd as Muller was thought to be on their team. Now I don't think Muller 'changed sides' but I do think he's very unlikely to get future funding from any Republicans and the realted business interests.

Anthony Watts, of course, quickly back peddled on his support of Muller. Calling the research unvetted. This is true Muller's work wasn't given enough time for peer review prior to his expert comments were to be made. Watts, at least, should have realized going into this that vetting wouldn't be possible in the time frame. I'm doubtful Watts would be calling for vetting if the conclusion was the other way. But, hey Watts is all about the political theater this case is simply a blinding example of that truism.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I see Dr Pielke's paper more as a reasonable (given his assumptions) 'translation' of Australian's government prediction in term of data coming from energy productions we use and know today.

Pielke's papers and statements in the past have had some glaring errors. Of course we can't judge his present actions by his past actions. (A broken clock's right twice a day.) What we need to do is let the science go forward and see what happens. Fair enough that you'd place your bet on Pielke. I'll keep the skeptical hat on and see what happens once the Aus. gov implements the solution. Let the outcome speak about which was truly more or less reasonable.

Quote:

Yes, they will hopefully correct it: the article seems to have already undergone many revisions (I see a v14 somewhere, and linked to the last available v17) and T-J gave a link from a 2009 draft.

I believe this paper started around 2003/5. I'd seen it before in earlier forms. Apparently it's not complete and clearly is not vetted so at this point we don't know if there is, or isn't, any substance here.

EDIT:
And note the political theater here. We see Watts, as one anti-GW example, decrying the report from Muller, at this same time, as non-acceptable because it hasn't been vetted. Yet Watts fails to treat this the same way, even though the same not vetted statement equally applies.
: END EDIT

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Apr-2011 at 02:50 PM.

@NoelFuller
From T-J's comment to TMTisFree
Quote:

Also, your vested interest is showing.

when he posted the link, I suspect that you may be leaning against an open door.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Muller's critic was directed to the 'trick(s)' used by the Team to 'hide the decline' and the HS which are both emblematic but unscientific/incorrect. Nothing particularly spectacular here, we know that since years.

Quote:

Recently the Republicans funded Muller's UC Berkley group to do a statistical analysis on Climate Change.

Funds to BEST seem to come from various donors (I see at least 1 left and 1 right, politically. The others I don't know).

Quote:

This is true Muller's work wasn't given enough time for peer review prior to his expert comments were to be made.

A 2% sampling is far too low, no correction has been applied and data & methods are still undisclosed. I will wait until then before having an opinion. I think the position of Watts is like one having been advertised a 240 miles range for his new EV car to discover right in the middle of nowhere it to be only 150.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Pielke's papers and statements in the past have had some glaring errors. Of course we can't judge his present actions by his past actions.

Why writing about it then?

Quote:

Fair enough that you'd place your bet on Pielke.

I have no bet on Pielke or on anyone else. I only report it because of the perspectives it brings when compared with the Aussie projection. If there are other scientists with different views/calculations on the matter, fine. It is always interesting to have scientific views, how differing.

Quote:

I believe this paper started around 2003/5. I'd seen it before in earlier forms. Apparently it's not complete and clearly is not vetted so at this point we don't know if there is, or isn't, any substance here.

I also recall having read a statement/paper in the recent past about it. Searching...1 minute later: ah! I just found it in my climate directory. It is the same 3 authors with the same paper but peer-reviewed in a scientific journal: Green, K. C., et al. (2009) Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making, International Journal of Forecasting, in press (saved locally on September 6, 2009 FYI).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

I read the article you linked. It will wait forever to be peer reviewed via any scientifically credible publication.

#FAIL

According to the five rules of propaganda (simplified from Norman Davies’ Europe: A History):

1/ the rule of simplification: reducing problems/persons to simple binary confrontation,
2/ the rule of disfiguration: trying to discredit opposite views by insults,
3/ the rule of transfusion: manipulating target audience's values for one's own agenda,
4/ the rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people (the so-called consensus),
5/ the rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in various combinations,

the rest of your post is a genuine 5/5 propagandist message.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Nimrod

Quote:

I suspect that you may be leaning against an open door.

That's a nice expression. I have not seen it before, but I suspected so too. I do not bother to respond to people whom I have learned have no substance. I prefer to discuss with people who can build on what is expressed, rather than beat on on the impervious walls of ignorance displayed by industry advocates - they have no doors methinks. :)

Noel

@BrianK

Quote:

Turns out Muller's group found Climate Change to be..."excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups". Which of course shocked the anti-GW crowd as Muller was thought to be on their team.

Fun is it not? I read about Muller in the NY Times with great amusement. It could be that members of his "team" insisted on protecting their own academic integrity although one hopes that Muller, faced with the results of his own analysis, had the moral fibre to stand by them.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 05-Apr-2011 at 08:34 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

And note the political thearter here.

I do indeed. The repercussions spread. I found this in a post on predicting future temperatures:

Quote:

Based on the above analysis, I'm fairly confident now that the GISS temperature anomaly average for 2011 will be 0.58, plus or minus about 0.05 degrees, and that either 2012 or 2013, and very likely both, will set a new record for global warmth. Is there anybody out there willing to put their name on a significantly lower estimate for this and future years? The relentless warmth is getting pretty conclusive - even star Republican witnesses in recent hearings on climate can't avoid pointing out that it's warming, and pretty fast.

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/predicting_future_temperatures

Noel

@Dandy

Germans have (as predicted here) switched from net electricity exporter to net electricity importer by Mars 15 this year according to Die Welt. A sustained 50 GW is now imported, some 3GW coming from French nuclear nukes and some 2GW from Czech Republic:


As the German Greens oppose building of new nuclear plants and call for shutting down the remaining ones (idem for coal) and refuse wind farms and new transmission lines across the country for environmental reasons (no kidding), they are slowly slipping to a 3rd world country status: the energy market in Germany will be taken over mainly by France and Czech, both nuclear countries. Note also that when Germans deliver cheap wind power surges to Switzerland and Austria for pumping water uphill, those countries later sell the generated hydro power back to Germans for higher prices. We appreciate your business!

Edit: corrected the Watt number coming from France. Der Spiegel has also an article in English.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Apr-2011 at 06:50 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

I personally doubt that the Green and Armstrong paper I found will ever be submitted for peer review. It achieves its purpose by simply being available on the internet as a .pdf that climate sceptics can link to.

The paper's main argument scuppers the piece as serious science, anyway.

The other paper, Green et al, 2007, was a bit better. Negatives include the point that its conclusions appear to rest entirely on one forecasting method. I was also particularly surprised by the dismissal of the past 800,000 years of temperature records as 'large, irregular variations', with no attempt to explain or understand the causes of said fluctuation, something which is essential before you can even attempt to predict the future.

And they can't quite resist retelling the story of the Ehrlich-Simon bet. The lesson there can be summarised as one must be careful to understand the processes driving a given change before using recent data to forecast the future. It is worrying to see them quote this example with great satisfaction, having made the same error as Ehrlich. But on the plus side, it does at least avoid scuppering itself in quite the same spectacular way as the unpublished paper.

And concerning the vested interests, I suppose I should clarify that I don't know about TMTisFree, but in my view it is telling that Armstrong et al are keen to suggest cutting government funding for such a wide range activities, of which some are really only peripheral to climate change. Even if we assume the sceptical position, it doesn't make sense to cease investigating habitat loss and alternative energy.

@TMTisFree

The Greens are always going to be a problem for implementing any energy policy. No nuclear stations, because they're difficult to clean up after and can be used to make particularly nasty weapons. But no coal, because its dirty and carbon-intensive. No oil, because its also carbon-intensive and besides, production will peak and we don't want to be dependent on the Middle East anyway. No gas, see oil and substitute Russia for Middle East. No wave, because that'll ruin the coastal ecosystem. No hydro, because the dams will silt up and drown lots of nice countryside. No wind, because that'll put migratory birds off and ruin the view. And no solar, because its never sunny enough this far north.

At the consultation level, this litany of opposition is all to the good. We need to be aware of the downsides of building whatever it might be, wherever we might want to build it. Eventually though, it becomes necessary to go ahead and actually start generating electricity, somehow. Unfortunately for Germany, politics has got in the way of that and has handed a golden opportunity to neighbouring countries.

But 'heading for 3rd world status'? I wouldn't say that. Germany has to import *something* to balance its strong manufacturing exports. Why not electricity?

Last edited by T-J on 06-Apr-2011 at 01:14 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 06-Apr-2011 at 01:13 AM.