Archive for the ‘Climate Skeptic’ Category
Climate Skeptic: Are Climate Models Falsifiable?
April 26, 2008Tags:climate models, RealClimate
Posted in Climate Skeptic | 1 Comment »
Climate Skeptic: Response to Greg Craven’s “How the World Ends” Video
January 17, 2008I have watched Craven’s “Most Terrifying Video” and found it rather…anti-climactic 8-)He’s basically saying is that we should refer to scientific authorities. Yuck…is THAT it?
“Undeniable”???
Something I haven’t seen yet is an understanding that risk management cannot be seriously done if one of the “four boxes” is so heavily catastrophist, whilst the consequences of action are disregarded as minimal and confined to economics alone.
Somebody please google about “Bufo marinus”…
The tragedy is that we’ve been this way before, many times, and scientist-advocates have already brought us disasters around their pet ideas. Eugenics, and the Bufo Marinus.
I say, I am catastrophist myself, and if the human race decides to waste all resources in fighting the AGW fake monster, it’s going to be “amen” and “r.i.p.” to all of us
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | January 17, 2008 at 01:36 AM
Tags:AGW, Bufo Marinus, catastrophism, climate change, Eugenics, Greg Craven, Most Terrifying Video, risk management
Posted in Climate Skeptic | 3 Comments »
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | April 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
It would be interesting if “Scientist” would come up with ways to falsify the climate models, since as we know the people at RealClimate won’t. The “weather vs. climate” picture confirms my point: as long as there is _any amount_ of “warming”, the climate models will be considered _right_ (in the sense of “not false”).
One can imagine a period of 20 years of cooling dismissed out of hand as “aerosols” or “soot” or whatever else: with the climate models still “right”, no matter what.
On the other hand when, say, James Hansen talks about “tipping points” he is not referring to changes that will be visible only after 10 or more years of statistics: rather, to spectacular modifications of the world as we experience it. Am I mistaken on this point?
So please, if you can, try to be explicit about what observations would make you change your mind.
As I mention in my Moon Hoax blog, the difference between a dogmatic and a honest debater is that the former invariably never ever reveals what evidence would convince them to change their mind.
http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/phil-plaits-moon-hoax-london-speech-report/