Arguments
Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Posted on 18 March 2012 by dana1981
Rachel Maddow is a journalist with a show on the MSNBC network in the USA (The Rachel Maddow Show). Similar to Skeptical Science, she's known for her fact-based debunking of various absurd myths - in Maddow's case, those which tend to arise in the realm of politics.
In a recent show regarding Senator James Inhofe's new book, Maddow debunked the Climategate-related 'hide the decline' myth, and referenced Skeptical Science in the process (see the 3 minute mark in the video below).
We will be addressing the various myths repeated by Senator Inhofe during this interview in a future post. In the meantime, Joe Romm at Climate Progress has a good post about the interview.
[dana1981] Please see Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change and the rebuttals to the myth 'There is no consensus'
the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. From my perspective and considering its age this is in deed still true. Otherwise, why does research continue if we already know it all, and why do the predictions become revised or outdated so fast? I pointed at the two factions of the present while you point at the scientific battle between two camps in the past. That past battle isn't over. As you well know, the center of the universe was or is the earth. But that merely depended what point one picked as a reference. Believe it or not, now science tells us we are wrong again and our universe isn't the center either. Also, may I remind you, by “scientific consensus” the earth was declared to be flat much like what climatologists attempt with AGW-CO2. History tells us not to swallow any proclaimed axiom or rally behind a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself. Yes, I was quoting from IPCC AR3... 2001, more than 11 years old. But not much has changed since then except the computing power. It might have increased by a magnitude making the simulations run faster but not much better. Let's understand what the computers are used for: To simulate the past (back-cast) and if it seems to fit to be able to project into the future. Nowhere in the ICPP AR4 (2007) report do I read that those calculations are forecasts. There is talk about more models and capabilities to run several scenarios or “What ifs” very fast. The models are still manipulated with assumptions, corrections compensation or amplification factors. Therefore, those computers are like any other computer: depending on the inputs they will provide outputs with multiple adjustments to produce the desired results. The limitation remains that at the current time we are dealing with an rather infantile science. Not all parameters of the climate are known nor are their actions and interactions. E.g. it may appear that it should be a simple task to use a computer as a random number generator. Does anyone have a computer yet that can produce true random-numbers? No. Why would one assume that by running a scenario on high powered computers would produces a climate forecast? Scenario, after all, is a fancy term for a “what if calculation”, a very useful research tool for the scientist but dangerous in the hands of politicians. ICPP is aware of its limitation an has never retracted its position: “... we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”. AR4 looks to be a bit closer by harping on the term “forcing”, which is to say by considering another factor for the models but there is still a long journey ahead for them. My recommendation is not to overestimate the capability of models but to appreciate the distinction between scenario and forecast to avoid conclusions base on a misconception. IPCC, AR4 reports re-confirms that they don't have all the answers. And let's be realistic, if they would claim to know it all we are in deep trouble because we would know that they are not scientists. One most interesting admission appears to be an attempt to re-introduce solar radiation: “.... However, the relationship between the isotopic records indicative of the Sun’s open magnetic field, sunspot numbers and the Sun’s closed magnetic field or energy output are not fully understood ...” This is in conjunction with Fig. 6.13. This figure shows that +0.5 C of the Hockey stick is the direct result of the sun's solar irradiance forcing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6-3.html ). What is one to make of that? It says that the sun influenced past climates but for some reason IPCC claims the sun is “extremely unlikely” to influence future climates. The reports serve their purpose of not being truly scientific material but means to aid those removed from the science valuable information and aid in rendering an optimum public policy decisions. At the same time the reports are more than outdated and still have that famous disclaimer everyone likes to overlook: “...the complexity of the climate system and the multiple interactions that determine its behaviour impose limitations on our ability to understand fully the future course of Earth’s global climate. There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycles. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-1.html[DB] Please note that this is a website which discusses the scientific evidence for & against climate change and debunks skeptic memes about the science. As such, it is implicit on all parties to back up assertions with citations and links to the peer-reviewed papers appearing in reputable journals that support their assertions. Additionally, all comments made must be on-topic to the thread on which they are placed and also be constructed to comply with the Comments Policy.
The portions of your comment in conflict with the above were struck out. An earlier comment of yours pretty much containing the same issues was judged to be trolling and was deleted as such. Future comments such as this will be deleted in their entirety, as will responses to it.
Note that nearly 5,000 comments threads exist here at SkS on pretty much everything there is related to climate science. None are closed for discussion. Find the most appropriate thread (via the Search function in the Upper Left of every page) and place the relevant portions of your intended thoughts there.
FYI.
[DB] "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory not supported by science but by crude climate models."
There are two problems with this statement. The first is the reliance upon a vaguely defined fake-skeptic term ("Catastrophic"). The second is the gross mischaracterization of models as being "crude" (another vague term).
You then proceed to erect straw man arguments also built on ill-defined premises and fake-skeptic talking points, the main thrust of which are off-topic on this thread. Please keep in mind that this thread is about Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science.
Off-topic portions snipped.
[DB] Intermission is over; let us all return to the central premise of this thread. Thanks!