3 ms·

No, I expect you to read the paper before you accuse the researchers of bad faith. Here, allow me to spoon feed you the results of a 1 second google search for

No, I expect you to read the paper before you accuse the researchers of bad faith. Here, allow me to spoon feed you the results of a 1 second google search for the paper's title and authors: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337753937_Evaluating_the_Performance_of_Past_Climate_Model_Projections/link/5e56bee14585152ce8f2688c/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337753937_Evaluatin... Now: what evidence do you have of cherry picking on the part of the authors? You raised the issue, you questioned the integrity of the researchers, so it's your burden to show that there was cherry picking. Actually, here, let me spoon feed you even more. Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the methods section: > We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early‐1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with 14 distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria. Starting in the mid‐1990s, climate modeling efforts were primarily undertaken in conjunction with the IPCC process (and later, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects, CMIPs), and model projections were taken from models featured in the IPCC FAR (1990), Second Assessment Report (SAR‐IPCC, 1996), Third Assessment Report (TAR‐IPCC, 2001), and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4‐IPCC, 2007). > The specific models projections evaluated were Manabe, 1970 (hereafter Ma70), Mitchell, 1970 (Mi70), Benson, 1970 (B70), Rasool & Schneider, 1971 (RS71), Sawyer, 1972 (S72), Broecker, 1975 (B75), Nordhaus, 1977 (N77), Schneider & Thompson, 1981 (ST81), Hansen et al., 1981 (H81), Hansen et al., 1988 (H88), and Manabe & Stouffer, 1993 (MS93). The energy balance model projections featured in the main text of the FAR, SAR, and TAR were examined, while the CMIP3 multimodel mean (and spread) was examined for the AR4 (multimodel means were not used as the primary IPCC projections featured in the main text prior to the AR4). Details about how each individual model projection was digitized and analyzed as well as assessments of individual models included in the first three IPCC reports can be found in the supporting information Do you still want to accuse these researchers of bad faith?

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
To you, the fact that their methods section didn't loudly announce they're cherrypicking might be enough evidence to trust them. To me, the fact that climate science has made its fair share of vast, vast mispredictions, such as the prestigious Club of Rome's 1972 model saying we'd run out of petroleum in ~2000, means that the default assumption is mistrust, not trust. You can call me a tinfoil hatter, but I think if one wants conclusive evidence on the accuracy of climate models they'd have to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. That's obviously way too much effort for a snide internet discussion, but the point is that if the field is mostly bullshit, that's just not refutable by pointing to the same people saying they're not bullshitting.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Okay, well, go ahead and put your head in the sand. Just don't fuck it up for the rest of us, k? > to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? The very point I was making is you should do it yourself. Good job ignoring it. > Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view? You're mistaken, this paper fits my world view perfectly. It's saying climate science is mostly accurate, if you look at a set of accurate models. This is obviously sound reasoning. It's just not saying anything.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? As far as fitting your worldview, you contradict yourself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 So, which is it? Do you believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity in the near term, as the models predict, and as climate science predicts, or no?
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        > You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it. But because you're asking so incredulously: Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago

To you, the fact that their methods section didn't loudly announce they're cherrypicking might be enough evidence to trust them. To me, the fact that climate science has made its fair share of vast, vast mispredictions, such as the prestigious Club of Rome's 1972 model saying we'd run out of petroleum in ~2000, means that the default assumption is mistrust, not trust. You can call me a tinfoil hatter, but I think if one wants conclusive evidence on the accuracy of climate models they'd have to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. That's obviously way too much effort for a snide internet discussion, but the point is that if the field is mostly bullshit, that's just not refutable by pointing to the same people saying they're not bullshitting.

pmiller2 6y ago
Okay, well, go ahead and put your head in the sand. Just don't fuck it up for the rest of us, k? > to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? The very point I was making is you should do it yourself. Good job ignoring it. > Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view? You're mistaken, this paper fits my world view perfectly. It's saying climate science is mostly accurate, if you look at a set of accurate models. This is obviously sound reasoning. It's just not saying anything.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? As far as fitting your worldview, you contradict yourself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 So, which is it? Do you believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity in the near term, as the models predict, and as climate science predicts, or no?
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it. But because you're asking so incredulously: Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.