Posted on 02/14/2010 1:51:24 PM PST by Bhoy
Lol! Very good and good point too. Now we will see modelers (I hold a PhD in Stats) come out of the woodwork with models that rebut AGW.
Here’s a truism in science:
ALL MODELS ARE FALSE, SOME ARE USEFUL.
But your farcical point should be well-taken as this is still about politics and not science. These time series modelers may indeed be mercenaries or zealots trying to cash in on the latest craze, but I believe they are at least on the right side of the argument this time.
But caution is warranted about those crossing political borders.
In the post-Soviet Czech film ‘Kolya’ (a wonderful film) a middle-aged musician gets involved in a sham marriage for money. He is watched and taken to the local KGB office where he is beaten to a pulp to get the truth our of him. The Velvet revolution intercedes and we see the KGB agents come out into the street to join the revolution and wave and smile at the man they just beat the hell out of saying they were never really communists yada yada......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolya
So we can expect a lot of academics crossing over to our side because they know that political power will be shifting. Yet otherwise some would have been or were content to create models that support AGW.
That said, there are still impressive scientific models to be in awe of. Newton was an awesome modeler and even if his models were not completely true, they were and are useful and still used today.
My hope is that this latest collapse in communist credibility (because that is precisely what it is) will bring down their democrat and RINO accomplices this Fall and in 2012, and usher in real meaty political action such as found in the following:
Somebody's been listening to too much Richard Hoagland on Coast to Coast AM...:)
>> These time series modelers may indeed be mercenaries or zealots <<
I believe they’re probably neither — they’re just econometricians!
But whatever sins econometricians might have committed at some time or another, I think they’re ideally-equipped to challenge the AGW crowd, since econometrics basically has evolved over the last 50 years into a very sophisticated science of model-testing under conditions where most of the available data are seriously contaminated with non-randomness, autocorrelation, non-normal distributions, multicollinearity, huge sampling errors, etc. That’s why some wags have been known to call econometrics “the science of testing lousy data.”
Moreover, if the authors seek to publish in a first-rate journal of economics or econometrics, they’ll be required to deposit both their computer code and their raw data in such a place and format that other researchers can easily check their methods and seek to replicate their results.
So I say the world shouldn’t worry about the possible zealotry and mercenary motives of these researchers. Those factors should make no difference. The data will — in the end — speak for themselves. Hope you agree!
Well, there's the problem right there! Not enough diversity or co-integration. And probably not "sustainable," either.
Signed...a "Social Scientist"
>> what I always say sometimes <<
Yep, “always sometimes” is usually where I’m at!
Of course I agree and the same could be said for biostatisticians who measure data biased by dropouts, and then have to develop theory for how to adjust for ‘lost to followup’, etc.
Statistics is fun but always full of biases and shitty data.
I love bootstrapping though to create a good artificial random sample but can’t use it solely for publication if the original data are crap.
Yeah these climate modelers that backed AGW hid their data, lost their data, let their dogs eat it, used it to roll some stoagies, etc.
And they almost got away with it by capturing some so-called peer-reviewed journals.
Climate Science has been completely politicized and needs major purging of those even remotely associated with scientific misconduct.
I knew it was a political game years ago when I was completing my doctorate and one of the other PhD candidates asked me to join on a global warming grant to study the 1990s ice melt in permafrosted areas of the Bering Sea. A quick trip to the library found reported that the ice had also melted in 1933 and was subject to a 60-year cycle of shifting deep ocean currents. So I politely backed out and kept a low profile knowing how political the whole crap subject was.
Then I knew the game was up about 5 years ago when I picked up a book on French Champagne by a 5th generation winemaker in France, a young guy eager to make the whole subject of champagne a science. In his last chapter he discussed the “Effect of Global Warming on Champagne Bubbles” and went on to draw graphs and charts and so on. Then he thanked the Ministry of Environmental Truth or whatever the French called it at the time, for their support on this study of ‘global warming’ effects on those bubbles.
If the scammers had ever gotten to the cap and crap exchange trading, I would have found an associated ultrashort ETF and gone long!
Still chuckling.
Thanks for the lesson. I understand things I didn’t before so thanks for your comments.
However do you have answers for what the AGW says it is basing its theory on:
“... The system we study is ruled by the well-known laws of physics.... The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by Fourier, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other gases were first measured by Tyndall in 1859, the climate sensitivity to CO2 was first computed in 1896 by Arrhenius, and by the 1950s the scientific foundations were pretty much understood.”
Earlier post today (IPCC Erroes: Facts and Spin)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2451330/posts
Without evidence of actual cause, they built climate models with the presumption of cause built in, using the circular logic of the model’s result as “proof”; when the only thing the models proved is that if they are programmed for a particular result, they, the models, will produce that result.
Bingo, from the Suntrade Institute.
Unfortunately there are many many other superficial academics, like economics, and "political scinece" that work from the same bigotry.
Actually it was funny — after I went back & read it — yes & Anwort42 is one of my passwords. That was funny too.
Yes there was a very good article published on FR just a few days back by two German physicists that completely eviscerate the application of the Fourier and follow-on momdels to atmospheric models.
Wait a moment and I will retrieve the link for you:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2449741/posts
Suggest you read it carefully and ask questions if you get stuck. It is a fine grade paper that should be read by every student of undergraduate physics including those that go on to specialize in atmospheric physics.
Too many variables, most unknown.
Economists?
GHG? ... Is that the exotic date rape drug? Al Goreghoul has raped America!
“Unfortunately there are many many other superficial academics, like economics, and “political scinece” that work from the same bigotry.”
At least economics starts with data, as opposed to Marxist political science that starts with the religion of Marx, and attempts to bend the data, or ignore it, in support of it’s beliefs.
The economists problem stems from the fact that the data arrived from activity that depended on choices people made, under the circumstances in which they made them. The error they make is when the try to sell past patterns derived from past data as ABSOLUTE guides to future actions.
We humans defy those absolutes. Even if we do come close to their predictions sometimes, the exact economic results and the meanderings of economic cycles are never perfectly the same.
Thanks. I’ll read it.
The Gelich and Tscheuschner paper is even more credible because they published it WELL BEFORE Climategate, so they were gutsy to go against the estiablished machine at the time.
I’d like to meet them someday.
Waht?
When I was a young lad, we took milk cartons and cut one side off.
Then we filled it with dirt and put some seeds in it.
Then we covered that side with plastic, and laid it out in the Sun with the plastic covered side up.
The result... The seeds germinated and grew faster and better than they would normally.
WHERE’S MY GRANT MONEY?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.