The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

[LeafByNiggle]

As for me having it both ways, it is not my problem that the modelers painted themselves into a corner.

It is you that has painted yourself into a corner by asserting two contradictory claims: that the climate models have all failed, and that the climate models cannot be tested. If they cannot be tested, then on what basis do you say they have failed?

 

[sps49]

It is you that has painted yourself into a corner by asserting two contradictory claims: that the climate models have all failed, and that the climate models cannot be tested. If they cannot be tested, then on what basis do you say they have failed?

They failed coming in the door, LeafByNiggle. If a person has a magic box, and they tell me that it will show me future events, but can’t explain how it works, it’s a non-starter. Remember “show your work” when you were attending school, and how unfair it seemed that you or someone you knew received low marks because the work was not demonstrated? What ever epistemological point you think you have is dwarfed by the unresolved technical issues that you are choosing not to see. But keep digging, there may indeed be a pony.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They failed coming in the door, LeafByNiggle. If a person has a magic box, and they tell me that it will show me future events, but can’t explain how it works, it’s a non-starter.

A model is not a homework assignment. It is a computer program that attempts to produce results that agree with subsequent measurements. When people say the AGW climate models have failed, what they mean is that predictions made by the model are too far off from what actually happened. This point is made abundantly clear by those who invariably post some graph showing the temperature trend predicted by Hanson, etc, along with the actual measured temperatures. Then they say “See, the models have failed”. No one has ever said “The models have failed because they have not provided an adequate epistemological basis for their predictions.”. No one, that is, until you.

In an effort to understand how far off a prediction needs to be to “totally fail”, I asked how close it need to be to be considered “not failed”, to which you responded with the nonsensical “the models cannot be tested”. Is that a fair recap?

 

[Darryl1958]

Popes have declared that AGW is real and this is a matter of faith?

Does the charism of infallibility extend to climate pronouncements?

That would be as preposterous as it sounds, wouldn’t it be?

It would be one way of having faith in the ‘religion’ of global climate change without having to rely on the science of valid data collection though.

 

[sps49]

A model is not a homework assignment. It is a computer program that attempts to produce results that agree with subsequent measurements. When people say the AGW climate models have failed, what they mean is that predictions made by the model are too far off from what actually happened. This point is made abundantly clear by those who invariably post some graph showing the temperature trend predicted by Hanson, etc, along with the actual measured temperatures. Then they say “See, the models have failed”. No one has ever said “The models have failed because they have not provided an adequate epistemological basis for their predictions.”. No one, that is, until you.

In an effort to understand how far off a prediction needs to be to “totally fail”, I asked how close it need to be to be considered “not failed”, to which you responded with the nonsensical “the models cannot be tested”. Is that a fair recap?

The trend, the curve, does not match the measurements, so the models have failed. You may interpret that as an attack on your perception or perhaps even your reality, but that is something you must reckon with. I have provided a description of the problem, and have outlined possible solutions, none of which include abandoning modeling.

I understand your desire to maintain control and seek advantage of the discussion/debate space, but this particular discussion is currently stalled in the morass of your personal interpretation of what constitutes a failure. I have supplied some reference material to attempt to show why I believe there are fundamental problems with the design of these monstrosities, one of which is the lack of objective specification based V&V. I have even allowed that it will require a huge effort to do this, but that it must be done to restore credibility.

I am compelled agree to disagree with you on this point. If at some point you wish to address the technical problems which result in climate model failures, I will be around.