Past Climate Predictions Get a Web Sight

[DanG 1]

I'd take the site, and your argument, more seriously if it included predictions that have come true. If you only include things in your analysis that you know in hindsight (or hindsite for Marc) didn't come true (WMDs, Mission Accomplished, a foot of sea level rise by 2000, etc.) then it makes it appear that those guys (Bush, scientists) never got anything right. That's intellectually dishonest. I can come up with a website that has faulty scientific predictions from any branch of science. That doesn't mean that all science is crap.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

We know that CO2 causes reflection of long wave IR. Settled.

So if I can find a scientist who is requesting funding for this, you will change your mind and now say it isn't settled?

[billvon 3,120]

>A better analogy would be if 97% of doctors agreed that eggs are bad for
>you, or that 97% of doctors said that peptic ulcers are caused by coffee and
>stress.

They didn't say that. They do say that smoking is bad for you and can lead to heart disease or lung cancer.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

I'd take the site, and your argument, more seriously if it included predictions that have come true.

The presence of testable predictions would make this easier. But there really aren't many. What is happening is that are projections. Projections are not predictions. So there is an issue there.

Then add to it that projections go out another 80 years from now. We don't have empirical observations to confirm or deny the projections. So we have a problem with that.

So what we've seen over the last decade is a change of strategy. The narrative is not what we won't see but rather what we will. And what we will see is more extreme weather. Extreme weather is anything. Any storm. Any absence of storm. Any hurricane. Any non hurricane.

This means that every single weather event will be, in the words of Mann, consistent with what was expected.

So. Tell me when the climate scientists have been proven correct in the last twenty years. Climate science now is t about making predictions. It's about doing studies to find out why something happened. Or didn't happen. And how to link it to climate change.

Quote

If you only include things in your analysis that you know in hindsight (or hindsite for Marc) didn't come true (WMDs, Mission Accomplished, a foot of sea level rise by 2000, etc.) then it makes it appear that those guys (Bush, scientists) never got anything right.

of course. That's politics. Which is what the whole climate change thing is.

Quote

That's intellectually dishonest.

I dont see intellectual dishonesty is pointing out when it was wrong. Fred Hoyle wasnt always wrong. He was often right and made some utterly groundbreaking discoveries. But what he did to LeMaitre was unscientific and inexcusable. And he was apparently quite wrong, but never ever bought into the idea of a Big Bang. He couldn't bring himself to it.

Quote

I can come up with a website that has faulty scientific predictions from any branch of science. That doesn't mean that all science is crap.

no it doesn't. So long as it follows the hypothesis, experiment, observe and conclude model, science is right. Because science is a process. Science isn't wrong. Hypotheses are shown wrong. When enough evidence comes in supporting a hypothesis but cannot rule the hypothesis out, it becomes a theory. Relativity isn't proven. It just isn't ruled out and is the only explanation for certain things we observe. Evolution is a theory. A century of trying to disprove it hasn't come out well.

The science wasn't wrong on Apollo 16. The science was right. The hypothesis was that the Descartes Highlands were volcanic in origin. Apollo 16 didn't find any volcanic rock but lots of breccias. Many viewed it as a failure. Instead of a triumph of the scientific process. John Young said of Descartes upon setting foot on the Moon, "Apollo 16 is gonna change your image." It sure as hell did. it didn't mean he science was wrong. On the contrary, it meant the science was right.

Science must be testable. Observations must be allowed to rule out a hypothesis. Climate scientists have projected everything. And when everything is projected then nothing is. This is anti-science.

Climate models have another 80 years of observations to compare. Models are predicated on assumptions that might not happen.

Show me actual predictions to confirm or deny.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

We know that CO2 causes reflection of long wave IR. Settled.

So if I can find a scientist who is requesting funding for this, you will change your mind and now say it isn't settled?

Once again you've caught me not writing clearly.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

lawrocket

***

Quote

We know that CO2 causes reflection of long wave IR. Settled.

So if I can find a scientist who is requesting funding for this, you will change your mind and now say it isn't settled?

Once again you've caught me not writing clearly.

Not really.

I am just trying to figure out what it means when people say: I will wait for the science to be settled.

You gace a smart ass answer. Somebody else said science is never really settled. The original proclaimer of this wisdom hasn't answered. I have asked Rush the same question before (after he made the same statement), he was unable to answer it either.

If you don't know what would signify science to be settled, how can you proclaim science not to be settled?

[turtlespeed 226]

lawrocket

When everybody says everything and nothing will happen, you've got zero science going on

But then they are right over 100% of the time, and 97% of the people are behind them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>Science must be testable. Observations must be allowed to rule out
>a hypothesis. Climate scientists have projected everything. And when
>everything is projected then nothing is. This is anti-science.

>Show me actual predictions to confirm or deny.

Can you show actual medical predictions for any individual smoker? Can doctors estimate, to within a reasonable accuracy, the day they will die, and of what? And if not, does that mean that there's no science going on?

[lawrocket 3]

It wasn't intended to be a smart ass answer. If the science is settled then why are billions of dollars being spent on it?

I don't think that climate scientists have any plans to into a different field because there is no science left to do

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Science must be testable. Observations must be allowed to rule out
>a hypothesis. Climate scientists have projected everything. And when
>everything is projected then nothing is. This is anti-science.

>Show me actual predictions to confirm or deny.

Can you show actual medical predictions for any individual smoker? Can doctors estimate, to within a reasonable accuracy, the day they will die, and of what? And if not, does that mean that there's no science going on?

So approaching this scientifically. I will make the following predictions based on your exposure to workplace toxins. Firstly, you have been exposed to carcinogens, meaning that you may get a painful and debilitating and deadly bone cancer unless you immediately cease employment and relocate. The nice thing is that if you ever get cancer, I'll then be able to say I told you so. If you don't get cancer I'll say it was because you quit your job and relocated and thank goodness you listened. If you don't get cancer and kept your job, I'll merely tell you that I never said you'd get cancer, and either way it doesn't mean you weren't exposed to carcinogens, and that your clean bill of health is totally consistent with the exposure. But be aware that the exposure increases your chances of coughs, colds, flus and other respiratory infections and issues such that even a cough is certainly evidence of toxic exposure, and it becomes increasingly difficult to say that even a sneeze is random.

This, Bill, is what climate science has become. A whole series of projections of everything and post hoc attributions that are not falsifiable. I have just set it up so that no matter what, I will be correct. And then I will engage in a campaign, perhaps letting you know that anybody who denies that workplace solvents can be carcinogens is a chemistry denier. If you get older and your PSA goes up, rest assured that it is not inconsistent with exposure to workplace solvents.

Now, all I need to do is wait and see what happens. For indeed, I expect to be proven correct. And science will win out. Inductive reasoning. If you find yourself skeptical, also understand that exposure to workplace solvents also affects brain function. So doubt is to be expected. Then again, you May also agree with me, which is not inconsistent with dangerous exposure to workplace solvents.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>So approaching this scientifically. I will make the following predictions based on
>your exposure to workplace toxins. Firstly, you have been exposed to
>carcinogens, meaning that you may get a painful and debilitating and deadly
>bone cancer . . . .

So by the mocking/sarcastic tone I take it you do not believe that science can accurately predict the day someone will die if they smoke. Yet you understand that "the science is settled" on smoking risks. Climate science is quite similar - they can quantify the risks but cannot make to-the-day predictions.

>Now, all I need to do is wait and see what happens.

Again, quite similar to smoking. You might smoke two packs a day and live to be 100!

> If the science is settled then why are billions of dollars being spent on it?

Same reason billions are spent on cancer research even though the science is settled on the smoking/lung cancer connection.

>I don't think that climate scientists have any plans to into a different field
>because there is no science left to do . . . .

Right. Nor do evolutionary biologists plan to move into a different field because there is no science left to do. Nor do doctors who research vaccine effectiveness plan to move to a different field because there is no science left to do.

Of course, science deniers have used both the above facts to deny the science of evolution and vaccination as well. I think that's foolish.

[rushmc 23]

What is foolish is the smoking comparison. Fewer variables by far and more measurable in a narrower time frame

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

What is foolish is the smoking comparison. Fewer variables by far and more measurable in a narrower time frame

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking.

Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty.

They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

***What is foolish is the smoking comparison. Fewer variables by far and more measurable in a narrower time frame

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking.

Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty.

They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either.

Other than levels have increased. Show me a correct prediction

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

******What is foolish is the smoking comparison. Fewer variables by far and more measurable in a narrower time frame

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking.

Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty.

They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either.

Other than levels have increased. Show me a correct prediction

That question is a pretty clear indication that you are completely missing the point.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

*********What is foolish is the smoking comparison. Fewer variables by far and more measurable in a narrower time frame

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking.

Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty.

They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either.

Other than levels have increased. Show me a correct prediction

That question is a pretty clear indication that you are completely missing the point.

No. You are avoiding facts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>So approaching this scientifically. I will make the following predictions based on
>your exposure to workplace toxins. Firstly, you have been exposed to
>carcinogens, meaning that you may get a painful and debilitating and deadly
>bone cancer . . . .

So by the mocking/sarcastic tone I take it you do not believe that science can accurately predict the day someone will die if they smoke. Yet you understand that "the science is settled" on smoking risks. Climate science is quite similar - they can quantify the risks but cannot make to-the-day predictions.

>Now, all I need to do is wait and see what happens.

Again, quite similar to smoking. You might smoke two packs a day and live to be 100!

> If the science is settled then why are billions of dollars being spent on it?

Same reason billions are spent on cancer research even though the science is settled on the smoking/lung cancer connection.

>I don't think that climate scientists have any plans to into a different field
>because there is no science left to do . . . .

Right. Nor do evolutionary biologists plan to move into a different field because there is no science left to do. Nor do doctors who research vaccine effectiveness plan to move to a different field because there is no science left to do.

Of course, science deniers have used both the above facts to deny the science of evolution and vaccination as well. I think that's foolish.

Bill. Your points are all valid. Nevertheless, you did not actually touch upon the arguments I made about predicting everything would happen and then would use those events in an inductive way.

So when I tell you that you should quit your job and relocate because exposure to workplace solvents may give you cancer what is your response? This is exactly the methodology used by climate alarmists. Science is that x can cause y. The logic then became x therefore y. Then it moved to y therefore x.

Greenhouse gases may cause intensification of storms
Greenhouse gases causes intense storms
It's climate change, stupid. That storm wouldn't have happened without climate change

You note the flaws in the logic

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

************What is foolish is the smoking comparison. Fewer variables by far and more measurable in a narrower time frame

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking.

Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty.

They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either.

Other than levels have increased. Show me a correct prediction

That question is a pretty clear indication that you are completely missing the point.

No. You are avoiding facts

I am indeed avoiding pointing out that there are no accurate predictions regarding when somking will kill you. I figured you had made a fool of yourself enough already without me pointing that out for you.

[billvon 3,120]

>So when I tell you that you should quit your job and relocate because
>exposure to workplace solvents may give you cancer what is your response?

If that's the only way to manage the risk? Might be a good idea. (BTW my wife's parents were told almost exactly that by their doctor when she was a child - and they did relocate as a result. And it worked.)

>Greenhouse gases may cause intensification of storms
>Greenhouse gases causes intense storms
>It's climate change, stupid. That storm wouldn't have happened without climate
>change

>You note the flaws in the logic

Yes. But then again I have never heard a climate scientist say "that storm wouldn't have happened without climate change" so I don't see your story as an indictment of climate science.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

lawrocket

...So when I tell you that you should quit your job and relocate because exposure to workplace solvents may give you cancer what is your response? This is exactly the methodology used by climate alarmists. Science is that x can cause y. The logic then became x therefore y. Then it moved to y therefore x...

Well, instead of "quit your job and relocate," how about "reduce the use of those solvents, find safer alternatives and use protective gear when you have to use them."

Which is what really happened with workplace chemicals.

Sort of like 'find alternative energy sources that aren't as polluting (overall, not just CO2) and reduce the use of energy through higher efficiency and conservation."

Which is what the reasonable AGW proponents are advocating. Not that there aren't extreme weirdos on both sides.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo