Sunday, February 21, 2010

Bringing Skillfull Observation Back To Science

by Steve Goddard

Archimedes had his eureka moment while sitting in the bathtub. Newton made a great discovery sitting under an apple tree. Szilárd discovered nuclear fission while sitting at a red light.

There was a time when observation was considered an important part of science. Climate science has gone the opposite direction, with key players rejecting observation when reality disagrees with computer models and statistics. Well known examples include making the MWP disappear, and claiming that temperatures continue to rise according to IPCC projections – in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Here is a simple exercise to demonstrate how absurd this has become. Suppose you are in a geography class and are asked to measure the height of one of the hills in the Appalachian Plateau Cross Section below.

Image from Dr. Robert Whisonant, Department of Geology, Radford University

How would you go about doing it? You would visually identify the lowest point in the adjacent valley, the highest point on the hill, and subtract the difference. Dividing that by the horizontal distance between those two points would give you the average slope. However, some in the climate science community would argue that is “cherry picking” the data.

They might argue that the average slope across the plateau is zero, therefore there are no hills.

Or they might argue that the average slope across the entire graph is negative, so the cross section represents only a downwards slope. Both interpretations are ridiculous. One could just as easily say that there are no mountains on earth, because the average slope of the earth’s surface is flat.

Now lets apply the same logic to the graph of Northern Hemisphere snow cover.

It is abundantly clear that there are “peaks” on the left and right side of the graph, and that there is a “valley” in the middle. It is abundantly clear that there is a “hill” from 1989-2010. Can we infer that snow cover will continue to increase? Of course not. But it is ridiculous to claim that snow extent has not risen since 1989, based on the logic that the linear trend from 1967-2010 is neutral. It is an abuse of statistics, defies the scientific method, and is a perversion of what science is supposed to be.

Tamino objects to the graph below because it has “less than 90% confidence” using his self-concocted “cherry picking” analysis.

So what is wrong with his analysis? Firstly, 85% would be a pretty good number for betting. A good gambler would bet on 55%. Secondly, the confidence number is used for predicting future trends. There is 100% confidence that the trend from 1989-2010 is upwards. He is simply attempting to obfuscate the obvious fact that the climate models were wrong.

Science is for everyone, not just the elite who collect government grant money. I’m tired of my children’s science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.

2 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

The problem the world faces is that global warming has been the chosen vehicle necessary to establish a global taxation system. Thus any evidence contradictory to global warming had to be buried, because the creation of this global tax system cannot be allowed to fail.
I bought a new car the other day and had to pay a carbon tax, so whether global warming is real or not, or in contention does not matter, because the carbon tax already exists.

Essentially we have science being used to fulfil a political agenda.

It is happening in more than one sphere. Take genetics for instance. The globalists need to science to proof that all mankind are genetically identical. This contributes to their agenda of egalitarianism.

When science proves the contrary, then this evidence is buried.

The globalists want a global government with a global taxation system. Their tool of creation of this political system is the enforcement of liberalism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism through the manipulation of science, religion and politics.

All factors contributing to these goals are highlighted and all factors subtracting from these goals are ignored.

We live in a funny world where buzz words were created, such as conspirator etc. and all these words were designed to do, is to add immediate bias against the person doing the investigating. Thus ensuring that most people would be discouraged, hence they be labelled with an undesirable label like for instance, racist.

FishEagle said...

Anon 14.44. I agree that evidence gets buried for political purposes. Although I still think people have brushed off the topic of climate change far too easily. It's almost convenient to do it, using people's political agendas as an excuse.

The scientific debate is far from over.