Quotes of the day

Science is based on the scientific method. That allows that one does measurements of a phenomena, records them and then puts forth a framework on how such measurements correlate with others. Any hypothesis must have some data backing it, but is prone to data from related realms that may either bolster or disprove such a hypothesis. Predictions coming from a hypothesis allow that if those postulates are true, then certain effects that are measureable can be seen and measured.

For simple systems this is relatively easily done: a ball starting with zero velocity rolling down an incline plane has the vector of gravity and motion at right angles to it, which yield the net downward and forward motion of the ball. When you remove the forward vector by measurement you are left with the downward vector. That is easy to do science and while it took humanity some time to get to doing that, once it started as a process, this postulates and measurements to prove/disprove postulates concept, things really got rolling in multiple vectors. Yet the basics of repeatability, falsifiability and empirical measurements either via direct analysis or via analogies while understanding the differences in the analogs, allows for a large measure of science to be done.

For AGW to be ‘true’ it must demonstrate in PAST environments with KNOWN temps and carbon dioxide systems that their postulate is REPEATABLE in past domains and an analysis TOOL for them. Yet Earth’s history yields up time of de-coupled carbon dioxide readings and temperature as seen from stable carbon isotope analysis. Thus AGW fails to explain past domains which would be a touchstone to it being TRUE. That first video steps through the temperature process and demonstrates widly varying temperature domains independent of mankind that show far greater highs, lows and deltas in changes than in the current post-glacial period. Thus the base point of analysis is that there is no outstanding difference between our inter-glacial period and past ones. That requires an understanding of past atmospherics which go beyond the bounds and limits of AGW theory of direct linkage unless those proposing the theory can then demonstrate how they understand natural past fluctuations of both carbon dioxide and temperatures.

They can’t do that, therefore the differences that man makes both positive and negative (and there are aerosols we put out on the negative side of the ledger) are not being teased from natural atmospheric variability and our understanding of past climates. The history of life on earth has a good 800 million year data set, albeit with a large amount of time compression due to lithification, that MUST serve as the basis for understanding not only climate but ‘climate change’: our sample set is too small to have any relevence to the larger data set that has seen swings in all atmospheric gases and temperatures, and simple postulation on mankind’s effects do not address the larger climate background of the planet.

I was going through college while two major revolutions in the sciences were going on, and what I saw then told me how science works.

There is openness in data sharing post-publication.

There is acceptance of critics with data sets that can be replicated and reliable, and they are not shunted aside, demeaned or shut out from the discussion as their background and knowledge could prove key to a greater understanding of scientific endeavors and knowledge.

There is no attempt to subvert or suborn journals, nor to create a limited in-group of ‘peers’ that are the only ones ‘allowed’ to do peer review.

You do not do those things to stop the fields involved in inquiry, as they are vital to our long-term understanding of these phenomena as a species.

Science is a brutal full body contact sport. When you hide behind in-groups, destroy data, and otherwise seek to close out the wider scientific community you are not performing science in any way, shape or form. I know. I saw that at the last revolution in geology, and it was an eye opener. AGW hasn’t wanted to come out and play and those involved in it have claimed to have the only marbles in town. How many are involved? Members of EA CRU, NASA/Goddard, NOAA and multiple weather services are suspect in cooking the books. Luckily stations have preserved their data so the decade or so of data gathering necessary to stand up the data sets originally, back when there wasn’t much of a digital base for them and it was done BY HAND can be rebuilt. Those that destroyed or homogenized data have broken faith with their predecessors who gathered the raw data, and that also ranks very highly in my books for undermining science as the trust handed to you in the form of raw data is to PRESERVE IT.

I know what science looks like and how it works.

AGW ain’t science.

It is time to come out and play, now, AGW believers.

Show me your data… and make sure it is the raw data, not your ‘adjusted’ or ‘homogenized’ data. And it had better include all the historical data sets for the last 800 million years or so, and you had better be able to explain how natural variation by orders of magnitude can be swamped by the tiny amount man has done to our current atmosphere so that you can show what man has done to the current atmosphere. Too bad that is more than just tree rings, weather stations and postulates on pollution. But that is science for you: you don’t get to play alone, as that is just playing with yourself.

ajacksonian on December 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM