muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:04pm:



And assumptions, dear boy, assumptions.

the undeclared ones.
As in "Climate models are just systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. "

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:14pm:



I already addressed that particular point, but you chose not to respond.  Statistics is a minor part of Climatology.

Climate is an average. It is not an object. The various fields that you mentioned do not make it into an object.

Weather is concrete - it's hot, cold, rain, shine. The climate is average weather. It's statistics.

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:48pm:



The first good analogy you have given. Climatology is more like the dismal science than anything else. They both have solid elements but when taken as a composite. they are both known more for their blunders than anything else.

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:17pm:


No, you didn't actually say it like that but Uncle Sigmund can hear you. And he can see that your fingers were crossed behind your back.

How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,695301,00.html


The Time for Clear Answers Is Over


However, it seems all but impossible to provide conclusive proof in climate research. Scientific philosopher Silvio Funtovicz foresaw this dilemma as early as 1990. He described climate research as a "postnormal science." On account of its high complexity, he said it was subject to great uncertainty while, at the same time, harboring huge risks.

The experts therefore face a dilemma: They have little chance of giving the right advice. If they don't sound the alarm, they are accused of not fulfilling their moral obligations. However, alarmist predictions are criticized if the predicted changes fail to materialize quickly.

Climatological findings will probably remain ambiguous even if further progress is made. Weingart says it's now up to scientists and society to learn to come to terms with this. In particular, he warns, politicians must understand that there is no such thing as clear results. "Politicians should stop listening to scientists who promise simple answers," Weingart says.

Quote:



It does always strike me as hilariously incongruous that the people who keep spouting this line about Climate science never apply the same criteria to other aspects of their life.

The type of nutters who frequent the denialist sites have no problems believing that the moon landing was a hoax, or that george bush blew up the world trade centre, or that climate scientists are all conspiring to promote climate change so they can make a killing on the real estate market by buying up low lying coastal properties cheaply, but they declare the overwhelming accumulation of evidence pointing towards anthropogenic climate change, is not definitive enough for them.

Considering the greatest support base for denialist drivel is the extreme right, who have a disproportionate over representation of ultra nationalistic, fundamentalist christians, it begs the question of just how they arrive at deciding what is considered evidence?