The pseudo-scientific nature of the IPCC Climate models.

[Terry Oldberg]

The climate models of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change were not falsifiable, thus lying outside science. I learned of this when, 5 months ago, I began to look into the scientific basis for the IPCC's claim of anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions.

As a model builder myself, I knew that one could get a quick assessment of the state of a science by looking at the validation data for the model or models. Thus, I Googled on the word "validation" and the phrase "IPCC models." This produced no sign of the existence of validation data. However, it did produce an Essay by Vincent Gray. In his essay ( http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Spinning...limate.pdf ), Gray revealed that he was an IPCC reviewer of long standing and that he had noticed that the IPCC models were not validated. He said he had raised the issue of how the models could be validated with the IPCC but that the IPCC had not responded by addressing the issue of "how." Instead, the IPCC had responded by changing the terminology of its reports. In the new terminology, a model was not said to be "validated." Instead, it was said to be "evaluated." Also, a model was not said to make "predictions." Instead, it was said to make "projections." While projections supported comparison of computed to measured average global temperatures, they failed to support falsification of the models.

In proper philosophical parlance, Gray had discovered that the IPCC models were not falsifiable, thus lying outside science. In its 2007 report on "The Physical Science Basis," the IPCC had provided ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...1s1-2.html ) an essay on "The Nature of Earth Science" by which it had created the impression that the climate models were scientific in nature when they were not. Thus, the proper descriptor for an IPCC model was a "pseudo-scientific model."

Today, politicians and journalists continue to reveal themselves to be ignorant of what is meant by "science" and "scientific." In this ignorance, they continue to believe in the IPCC's representation that a model built by people representing themselves to be scientists is a scientific model.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:He said he had raised the issue of how the models could be validated with the IPCC but that the IPCC had not responded by addressing the issue of "how." Instead, the IPCC had responded by changing the terminology of its reports. In the new terminology, a model was not said to be "validated." Instead, it was said to be "evaluated."

I did not realize that they changed from "validated" to "evaluated".

I did know about this part,

Quote:"Also, a model was not said to make "predictions." Instead, it was said to make "projections."

These two already discredits the rest of the IPCC reports,which are also based on faulty CRU temperature data and "grey" literature that is at least 50% of the so called scientific basis.

This link shows just how weak the "scientific" basis really is:

The Great Peer-Review Fairy Tale

Long ago the early science reviewers complained about the contents of the IPCC reports,even some of of the authors demanded having their names removed from it.

Yet we have Rajendra Pachauri,continue to push very untrue statements about the veracity of the 2007 IPCC report.The CHAIRMAN himself continues the lie that it is robust.

Pathetic.

[Sunsettommy]

Terry Oldberg writes,

Quote:As a model builder myself, I knew that one could get a quick assessment of the state of a science by looking at the validation data for the model or models. Thus, I Googled on the word "validation" and the phrase "IPCC models." This produced no sign of the existence of validation data.

Welcome to the party.

There is none,but the propaganda that it is worth something goes on and on and on.That is why they go that angle to help cover up the pseudoscience hole that it is.

The idea that ANY science hypothesis needs to be validated/verified before it can be considered to be a successful science work,is too much for the IPCC supporting mob.That is why is it full of second rate crap and why it is a growing millstone around the necks of people who doggedly continue to think it is great scientific work.

Besides their temperature "projections" are already way off for the first decade,proving it has no forecast skill to brag about.

The whole thing is a JOKE!

[Terry Oldberg]

(03-22-2010 06:59 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

Quote:He said he had raised the issue of how the models could be validated with the IPCC but that the IPCC had not responded by addressing the issue of "how." Instead, the IPCC had responded by changing the terminology of its reports. In the new terminology, a model was not said to be "validated." Instead, it was said to be "evaluated."

I did not realize that they changed from "validated" to "evaluated".

I did know about this part,

Quote:"Also, a model was not said to make "predictions." Instead, it was said to make "projections."

These two already discredits the rest of the IPCC reports,which are also based on faulty CRU temperature data and "grey" literature that is at least 50% of the so called scientific basis.

This link shows just how weak the "scientific" basis really is:

The Great Peer-Review Fairy Tale

Long ago the early science reviewers complained about the contents of the IPCC reports,even some of of the authors demanded having their names removed from it.

Yet we have Rajendra Pachauri,continue to push very untrue statements about the veracity of the 2007 IPCC report.The CHAIRMAN himself continues the lie that it is robust.

Pathetic.

In advance of the recent meeting of the world's political leaders in Copenhagen, I wrote to Pachauri to suggest that it was crucial for him to advise these leaders that the IPCC models were not scientific models. Pachauri did not reply.

[Sunsettommy]

He never would have replied because he is in it for the money and power.Your comment about those IPCC models would damage that.

[Richard S Courtney.]

Terry Oldberg:

In 2001 I published a peer reviewed paper in E&E that was titled "Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’ ".

It says several things including;

Quote:The “pseudo-scientific arguments” are clearly demonstrated by the assertions of future GW in the IPCC’s TAR. They arise from Chapter 2 of the report by IPCC Working Group III. These assertions are so extraordinary that in my Expert Peer Review for the IPCC I recommended; “TAR WG III Chapter 2 should not be published” and I commended that “the ‘Writing Teams’ of other TAR Chapters should object to publication TAR WG III Chapter 2. In my opinion, their failure to object could risk damage to their reputations as a result of association with Chapter 2” because it “is the most disingenuous and dangerous document it has ever been my misfortune to read.” But it was published, and the Vice Chairman of IPCC Working Group II, Martin Manning, then spoke out to make clear that he also disagrees it.

It describes the SRES scenario analyses and says,

Quote:Simply, the Chapter explains that the six models selected as “markers” by the Writing Team are those that the Writing Team most liked, and these “markers” cannot be claimed to be typical of anything.
Put another way, the “storylines” are a selection made using personal preference of 6 untypical models from 126 models that were chosen from a list of 519 quantitative models of one particular type, and other types of quantitative model also exist. The Chapter does not state the simple truth that such selection permits almost any storylines that could generate almost any preferred projections of the future.

If that seems like pseudo-science, then the Chapter contains worse. The Chapter states that, “Most generally, it is clear that mitigation scenarios and mitigation policies are strongly related to their baseline scenarios, but no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”. This statement is in the middle of the Chapter and is not included in the Chapter’s Conclusions. Failure to list this statement as a conclusion is strange because this statement is an admission that the assessed models do not provide useful predictions of effects of mitigation policies. How could the predictions be useful if the relationship between mitigation and baseline is not known ?

It concludes;

Quote:And the Chapter concludes: “Perhaps the most powerful conclusion emerging from both the post-SRES analyses and the review of the general futures literature is that it may be possible to very significantly reduce GHG emissions through integration of climate policies with general socio-economic policies, which are not customarily as climate policies at all.”

Simply, this conclusion of Chapter 2 of WG III TAR calls for changes to socio-economic policies that are not climate policies (at very least, this conclusion provides an excuse for such changes). And the Chapter’s Introduction states that these changes are intended to achieve “a more desirable future state” based on “societal visions of the future”.

This conclusion derived by the method that generated it for the purpose stated in the Chapter is an abuse of science. Indeed, it is not science to make predictions of how to change the future by use of selected scenarios when “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”: this is pseudo-science of precisely the same type as astrology.

If you want a copy of the entire paper then email me. And if Sunsettommy wants to provide a copy of it in the 'papers thread' of this blog I will email it to him if he emails me.

I hope you find this helpful.

Richard

[Richard111]

More IPCC shenannygins here:

IPCC Cites an Unpublished Journal 39 Times