Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1031)	9/6/2011 1:10:17 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Can you tell me if the large majority of scientists who think that the data we have on the subject suggests a link between warming and human activity are relying too much on data from imperfect computer models? Depends what they think. According to the what seem to me the best-researched view of the skeptics, the data supports thinking that there is "a link" between warming and human activity, as modeled by the imperfect models, but any declaration of just what that link is, how strong it is, and what it forebodes, are making predictions beyond what the models can bear. The uncertainties are too great, the simplifying assumptions too many, the data points too few and too questionable. Don't be so swayed by people crying "large majority of scientists". Most of the scientists are not climatologists and are no more expert in the models than you or I; and of the others, their pride and their current and future careers are all too much staked in getting the "right" answer and proclaiming it as certain. There is an orthodoxy at work here. We saw it in the Climategate emails, where the chief alarmists conspired to turn peer review into pal review in all the most respected journals, so that no skeptic could publish. That's why you see all the hiding and fudging, now that their predictions of twenty years ago are not coming to pass. Additionally, can you tell me if the scientists in the minority view on this subject are relying on data that is NOT largely derived from imperfect computer models? Some are, but many rely on experiment and direct observation. Their burden is less when you debunk a model than when you build one. The skeptics only need to prove the models are wrong in some important particular; they don't need to find the right answer for every particular themselves.