Maggie's Farm

The problem with these models is simple. They're models.

You can create a model for anything. Want it to say 10 feet? I'm certain there's plenty of data to say that. Want it to fall a foot? I'm sure that's possible, too.

It's all dependent on taking static data and trying to make it linear. I know how to analyze trends, create waves, and add fluctuations. But in modeling, you really need to have to have an idea of what you want BEFORE you build the model. Then it's a question of backing the data out.

If I choose 1,000 data points out of 100,000 and say "these are the most important", I'm still leaving 99% of the data untouched and saying "all things being equal". With data of this sort - climate data - it's inconceivable to think anyone has that much hubris.

Climatologists, like economists, know they are working with data that is Complex - sensitive to initial conditions. In other words, small changes over long waves have large impact. However, being able to tell which of the conditions has the biggest impact is damn near impossible.

As I've said, I model business applications constantly, and it's not too dissimilar from what climatologists do. I can say with some level of confidence that I think a certain model will be the one on which our decisions should be made. But the problem is that not one of my models has ever been perfectly correct (nor has anyone's in the business, so I'm not worried about doing a poor job). I've been close many times, but I've also been very wrong, too.

While I was able to call 2007 and 2008 "correctly", I did not call 2009 very well at all. And after reviewing the data, I was able to see why. The problem is that those reasons for the variation aren't repeatable events most of the time. You frequently get "caught out" by a variation or input that was unexpected.

I'd like you to go back, pull all the models of climate from 1999 onward, and compare them to actuals. If any - really ANY - single one is 100% correct, then perhaps there is a chance that particular modeler is on to something. On the other hand, getting lucky 13 times out of 13 is possible, since luck does tend to clump, and it's possible 2012 is the year that model goes off the rails. But I really think it's unlikely there is a single model that was correct, and here's why:
They have been wrong, so each undergoes an update every year, making the ability to track the persistence of the model nearly impossible at this point due to tinkering.

You know, Obama's models said his fiscal stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. By all accounts, it was a good model, too! And plenty of people believed it, enough to allow him to push it through. Yet here we are 3 years later, deeper debt, more people out of work, unemployment at 8.3% and no way to overcome some of the largest problems we face because he ballooned a part of the economy which he said was indicative of "a lack of leadership" when Bush was president.

Modeling is no way to push an agenda, unless you're relying on brainless sheep to listen. Clearly, there are plenty of those wandering the halls of climatology departments.

In economics, you shouldn't use a model to make decisions. The decisions should inform the model, and your behaviors should be based on what you see occurring, not what you believe will occur. It would lunacy to spend $1 trillion dollars today to build an anti-alien death ray. But according to Krugman (admittedly in one of his lighter moments), it's a great way to put people to work. Thing is, once the project is done, you're out $1 trillion and you have nothing of value for the money. But, but, but "the model said the aliens were coming!"

There's an interesting twist to all this. In 20 years, when none of today's models prove correct, the idiots who thought them up will claim "it was our clarion call which saved the earth." Yeah, right.

As usual, you're confusing several things.

It's not just a bunch of people waving their hands. John Christy may be a believer in some degree of AGW, but he is completely at odds with the catastrophic scenarios which the modelers have all put forth - and he has been fervent in backing up his point of view.

I really don't rely on Monckton. I'm not sure why he keeps factoring into things, except that he writes very well. Other than that, he doesn't exactly have a degree in any science, does he?

I would concede there is some small degree of human impact. But emphasize the word small. It's outlandish to think we don't impact the environment in some fashion. However, I also know there usually counterbalancing forces at work.

The primary issue of warming is the emphasis on Carbon Dioxide. I've heard all the arguments regarding forcing, and none really are compelling. The fact remains, and there have been letters signed by many scientists (oh, I know, they are physicists and other non-climatologists, and they are a minority, so clearly they know nothing) which emphasize the limited impact we, as humans, have on influencing the atmosphere.

I know your point of view is to agree with the consensus - but I'll remind you that Galileo was shamed by the consensus, until fashion changed. There is as much science behind the work of skeptics as there is by believers. The problem is the believers repeat themselves so much and so often, it's easy to see how and why their version of 'truth' is perceived to be "THE TRUTH", when clearly it simply cannot be so.

The idea of science is to open the discussion regarding issues like this - not shut it down. Yet this is exactly what the consensus is not doing, they shut down skeptics saying things such as that which you just said - that we are waving our hands with little or no evidence.

Except that believers also have little or no evidence. Just models, lots of believers, and tons of repetition.

To make matters worse, when legitimate questions about the nature of the debate are brought forth, the believers belittle the skeptics' intelligence, marginalize the data, and do not offer any means of legitimate peer review.

As a result, the skeptics are forced to follow less than normal paths to get their stories told, and this increases the ability of believers to claim "they are nuts".

The models, if correct, should at some point start showing true directional data. They have not. Not once. And there is a reason for this, and it's a reason why you get to claim "they are mechanistic...they become more predictive". Show me how that has occurred, because it hasn't. In fact, they've gone back and gerry-rigged data to make old models LOOK predictive.

I really am astounded that people continue to look at changing models and say it's "proof" of anything. It's not, and it can't be in a fluid and ever changing situation like climate.

Add to that the questionable nature of some of the data which has been collected over the years and how it has been manipulated, and you really just have a witch's brew of nothing.

You'll sit there, chuckle, and say I'm "waving my hands", but I understand how modeling works, and I do understand how they have manipulated data to pursue an agenda, one which people like John Christy and even physicists like Freeman Dyson have been very critical of.

I don't have to believe, nor should I believe, something that is 97% opinion, because opinion is easily manipulated by press - which is precisely the point of The News Junkie's article. Keep printing articles like this and the 97% becomes 98, then 99. At these percentages, "Tyranny of the Majority" is vicious, cruel, and unforgiving.

There is exactly as much science behind the skeptics' views as their is the believers. The only differences are there are more believers and they get to control the agenda and the press. At one time, more people believed the earth was flat, too.