3 ms·
Crichton was not honest or well-informed. Broadly speaking, the temperature record has little to do with the validity of AGW. Suggesting that "climate scientist
by canhascodez 8y ago
Crichton was not honest or well-informed. Broadly speaking, the temperature record has little to do with the validity of AGW. Suggesting that "climate scientists don't believe a whole lot in falsification and validation" is untrue, and something of an insult to the profession. Suggesting that the greenhouse effect is misnamed is a non sequitur. Your characterization of the study of H2O forcing is basically counterfactual. Berkeley Earth disagrees with your claim about temperature stations.
You don't seem to have a handle on the actual mechanism of carbon-induced warming. I find it most useful to examine science from a historical perspective: as a series of questions about the universe works. As such, I recommend The Discovery of Global Warming:
[0] https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
This will also tell you about how AGW was completely discredited (by multiple independent lines of evidence) for five decades, and had to fight its way back to academic credibility. That should serve as conclusive evidence that there is not a conspiracy or cabal shutting down alternative research: an 12-decade international conspiracy theory to maintain the credibility of a theory is implausible, but there's no way to reconcile that with the theory being discredited for its initial half-century.
- credit_guy 8y ago> Suggesting that "climate scientists don't believe a whole lot in falsification and validation" is untrue, and something of an insult to the profession I'm a quant on Wall Street. All banks have huge model validation teams. Hundreds of people at a typical mega-bank. Collectively the banking industry probably spends well north of $1 BN per year on challenging and validating models. You could say we should do that, since with the wrong models we can cause trillions of dollars of losses. And I agree. But then the climate science wants to ultimately impose trillions of dollars of carbon taxes. Why shouldn't it be subject to similar model validation requirements? Where are the hundreds of people who's job is to challenge the climate modelers? Where are the reports with the identified model weaknesses and the agreed action plans to remediate them? Oh, we have peer review? Voluntary and unpaid. Well, why are you really surprised that I'm skeptical?
- canhascodez 8y agoI'm surprised you're skeptical without knowing anything about peer review or climate modeling, yes: it's quite egotistical.
- mturmon 8y agoThere is a lot of climate model validation that goes on. I wrote a comment on another thread about just one such paper/campaign, that may help to illustrate how this works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15613090#15620293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15613090#15620293 (Please pardon the initial "straw man" sentence - the comment was directed at another post, months ago.)