Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
Just accidentally came across this blog post.
I wasn't aware that James Hansen who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies had made the following prediction in 1988-89:
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water [in 20 years].
Apparently he did.
And today, more than 20 years later, the West Side Highway remains dry and open. Sea level is not encroaching on the highway.
Just as Julian Simon made Paul Ehrlich a laughing stock because Ehrlich kept making ridiculous predictions about natural resources without understanding how the economy works, so also climate change fanatics – who have been jumping up and down claiming that the sky is falling down – will soon be shown up for their extreme extrapolations from scanty data. Their theories are insufficient, data is botched, and understanding of human adaptive capacities non-existent.
The credibility of climate change forecasts is close to zero.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- Two more studies that demolish the “science” of climate change
- Will “climate change” jokers now be shown the door?
- A physics Nobel laureate now says that climate change is pseudoscience
- Why having long term data is crucial before arriving at ANY conclusion about climate change
- The sun’s primacy in climate change – a simple and logical proof – the LAG EFFECT
- Milton Friedman’s son, David, points out key fallacies in the climate change alarm
- David vs Goliath: Climate change ‘sceptics’ vs IPCC and world governments
- A man who liberated 10 million people from communism and poverty warns against climate change panic
- Tony Burke admits human fallibility. Now will “climate change” policies be reviewed, please?
- One more climate change fool hits the dust (millions still remain – in top policy positions)
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies bombs badly at climate change predictions: Just… http://goo.gl/fb/COfLE
I was going to hold off commenting until I'd finished reading "Sex, Science and Profits" (which I got hold of but am too busy to devote much time to), but this is too good to pass up. It's possible to make anyone seem infallible by telling only of their victories, and anyone seem a fool by telling only of their failures. You could equally well say Julian Simon was turned into a laughing stock by David South. A single bet proves nothing either way, and climate forecasting is known to be inaccurate. What matters is whether the predictions are better than blind guessing. And you can't prove or disprove it with a single example or even a thousand examples all chosen to disprove it, ignoring the successes.
I was going to hold off commenting until I'd finished reading "Sex, Science and Profits" (which I got hold of but am too busy to devote much time to), but this is too good to pass up. It's possible to make anyone seem infallible by telling only of their victories, and anyone seem a fool by telling only of their failures. You could equally well say Julian Simon was turned into a laughing stock by David South. A single bet proves nothing either way, and climate forecasting is known to be inaccurate. What matters is whether the predictions are better than blind guessing. And you can't prove or disprove it with a single example or even a thousand examples all chosen to disprove it, ignoring the successes.
One falsification in science is generally enough to discredit an entire theory.
One falsification in science is generally enough to discredit an entire theory.
One deviation from the theory which is repeatable by any number of scientists. Not if somebody's opinion got wrong. Non-repeatable events like rare supernovas, evolution and a potential disaster are studied by other means, just as rigorously as physics. Venice is suffering saltwater flooding, most of the effect due to rising sea levels.
One deviation from the theory which is repeatable by any number of scientists. Not if somebody's opinion got wrong. Non-repeatable events like rare supernovas, evolution and a potential disaster are studied by other means, just as rigorously as physics. Venice is suffering saltwater flooding, most of the effect due to rising sea levels.
"One falsification in science is generally enough to discredit an entire theory."
An incorrect statistical prediction doesn't correspond to a falsification in science. Indeed, statistical predictions usually come with a measure of uncertainty.
"One falsification in science is generally enough to discredit an entire theory."
An incorrect statistical prediction doesn't correspond to a falsification in science. Indeed, statistical predictions usually come with a measure of uncertainty.
Dear AG
I would have agreed with you provided Hanson knew the basics of statistics and had put various statistical constraints on his bogus “prediction”, such as a 5% confidence interval (given the 95% probability of this “prediction” being proved to be nonsensical).
I’m sick of people with limited or zero knowledge of statistics (as most climate “scientists” seem to have) sticking their neck out on the basis of the most crappy analysis of data one can imagine. The data available to them (and us) is amenable to MANY interpretations – and the complexity of the system is simply not modelled. Instead, these “experts” have a uni-directional view that can’t be reformed because of their total ignorance of the scientific method. Or maybe half-baked knowledge of the scientific method which gets them a degree or two and a job as a researcher, and fools those who don’t have a clue about such things.
With time, the current lunatic fringe of “climate scientists” will die out and be replaced by robust science.
Trust me, the truth always wins! And the truth is that this hoopla about CO2 and its impacts has been blows WELL out of proportion.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear AG
I would have agreed with you provided Hanson knew the basics of statistics and had put various statistical constraints on his bogus “prediction”, such as a 5% confidence interval (given the 95% probability of this “prediction” being proved to be nonsensical).
I’m sick of people with limited or zero knowledge of statistics (as most climate “scientists” seem to have) sticking their neck out on the basis of the most crappy analysis of data one can imagine. The data available to them (and us) is amenable to MANY interpretations – and the complexity of the system is simply not modelled. Instead, these “experts” have a uni-directional view that can’t be reformed because of their total ignorance of the scientific method. Or maybe half-baked knowledge of the scientific method which gets them a degree or two and a job as a researcher, and fools those who don’t have a clue about such things.
With time, the current lunatic fringe of “climate scientists” will die out and be replaced by robust science.
Trust me, the truth always wins! And the truth is that this hoopla about CO2 and its impacts has been blows WELL out of proportion.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sanjeev:
I don't know what Hanson's background is (this is the first time I've heard about him), but I personally know at least one person who worked at NASA Goddard who was a statistician working on time series prediction of various weather parameters. I don't know in what context Hanson's prediction was made, but uncertain predictions are often provided without confidence intervals, especially since most of the janata have no idea how to interpret them (even statistical philosophers still have debates about their meaning and usefulness). Still, websites like wunderground.com say something like "60% probability of precipitation". So the weathermen are not unaware that there is uncertainty in their predictions.
I don't have a strong position on climate change. I'm just pointing out that this is a a bad example.
Sanjeev:
I don't know what Hanson's background is (this is the first time I've heard about him), but I personally know at least one person who worked at NASA Goddard who was a statistician working on time series prediction of various weather parameters. I don't know in what context Hanson's prediction was made, but uncertain predictions are often provided without confidence intervals, especially since most of the janata have no idea how to interpret them (even statistical philosophers still have debates about their meaning and usefulness). Still, websites like wunderground.com say something like "60% probability of precipitation". So the weathermen are not unaware that there is uncertainty in their predictions.
I don't have a strong position on climate change. I'm just pointing out that this is a a bad example.
Dear AG
I have studied this issue fairly extensively, and it appears to me that somewhere from the 1980s, a bunch of fanatics took over the science of climate. Once they got public attention and funding, they were unstoppable. They gained control over, and wasted billions of dollars of public money in a wild goose chase in which real science was no longer a participant. These guys have taken over all “powerful” bodies in this area including relevant science journals, not to talk about IPCC, and have blocked out all attempts to question them. The balanced and circumspect discourse that is the hallmark of science has disappeared and passionate and fanatic discourse has taken its place. That itself tells us that something is deeply wrong.
These, like anti-population fanatics (e.g. Paul Ehrlich) and other “greens” are politicians, not scientists.
Climate science is not unique in being taken over by fanatics. Economics and psychology have been subject to such hysterias as well. There are economists (Keyesian) who imagine that people are fools (that people are animated by ‘spirits’) and then apply their allegedly calm (not spirited!) preferences and imaginations to public policy rather than spend time to conduct a dispassionate study of the facts and of the impossibility of them determining the optimal decisions for each of us at the local level.
Such hysterias can take decades to calm down. Freudian psychoanalysis is a case in point. It has taken it over 100 years, and has not yet been discarded. Just like Marxism still keeps putting out its head in public discourse. Indeed, the UTTER NONSENSE that Marx (and Freud) wrote is actually taught in universities! In any science you’d never teach what has been falsified. But in economics (and psychology) it keeps getting taught!
We must conclude that science is a very long-term project and we ought to be very cautious of those who want to FORCE their half-baked views down our throat.
Re: meteorologists – btw, they are among the most sceptical of all trained scientists about the hype of climate “science”. And geologists – who look at long time scales – are almost UNANIMOUS that climate “science” is bad science, and for very good reason. There have been endless cases in the past where CO2 was much higher than it is today without temperatures being higher. Indeed, there were ice-ages with higher CO2 levels. Today’s CO2 levels are close the lowest in the Earth’s history. Geologists know that. They also admit that till today they don’t understand how ice ages come and go, or why ocean levels rise and fall. Everything changes, but why – we are in deep ignorance about it.
So what makes climate “scientists” firmly declare that not only they know the precise cause of whatever is happening (which is moot) but also that we must do the most ridiculous things to cut down economic development to prevent this imagined problem?
Everything I see in this area of climate “science” points to the need for GREAT caution, not hype. A “scientist” who creates hype must be ejected from the corridors of science. I’ve seen MANY IDIOTS in my life, including many who hold (or held) high “positions”. I’m not easily impressed by any such thing. I’d advise panic-stricken “scientists” like Hansen to get their heads checked.
At the minimum they need to take a long break and start learning statistics.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear AG
I have studied this issue fairly extensively, and it appears to me that somewhere from the 1980s, a bunch of fanatics took over the science of climate. Once they got public attention and funding, they were unstoppable. They gained control over, and wasted billions of dollars of public money in a wild goose chase in which real science was no longer a participant. These guys have taken over all “powerful” bodies in this area including relevant science journals, not to talk about IPCC, and have blocked out all attempts to question them. The balanced and circumspect discourse that is the hallmark of science has disappeared and passionate and fanatic discourse has taken its place. That itself tells us that something is deeply wrong.
These, like anti-population fanatics (e.g. Paul Ehrlich) and other “greens” are politicians, not scientists.
Climate science is not unique in being taken over by fanatics. Economics and psychology have been subject to such hysterias as well. There are economists (Keyesian) who imagine that people are fools (that people are animated by ‘spirits’) and then apply their allegedly calm (not spirited!) preferences and imaginations to public policy rather than spend time to conduct a dispassionate study of the facts and of the impossibility of them determining the optimal decisions for each of us at the local level.
Such hysterias can take decades to calm down. Freudian psychoanalysis is a case in point. It has taken it over 100 years, and has not yet been discarded. Just like Marxism still keeps putting out its head in public discourse. Indeed, the UTTER NONSENSE that Marx (and Freud) wrote is actually taught in universities! In any science you’d never teach what has been falsified. But in economics (and psychology) it keeps getting taught!
We must conclude that science is a very long-term project and we ought to be very cautious of those who want to FORCE their half-baked views down our throat.
Re: meteorologists – btw, they are among the most sceptical of all trained scientists about the hype of climate “science”. And geologists – who look at long time scales – are almost UNANIMOUS that climate “science” is bad science, and for very good reason. There have been endless cases in the past where CO2 was much higher than it is today without temperatures being higher. Indeed, there were ice-ages with higher CO2 levels. Today’s CO2 levels are close the lowest in the Earth’s history. Geologists know that. They also admit that till today they don’t understand how ice ages come and go, or why ocean levels rise and fall. Everything changes, but why – we are in deep ignorance about it.
So what makes climate “scientists” firmly declare that not only they know the precise cause of whatever is happening (which is moot) but also that we must do the most ridiculous things to cut down economic development to prevent this imagined problem?
Everything I see in this area of climate “science” points to the need for GREAT caution, not hype. A “scientist” who creates hype must be ejected from the corridors of science. I’ve seen MANY IDIOTS in my life, including many who hold (or held) high “positions”. I’m not easily impressed by any such thing. I’d advise panic-stricken “scientists” like Hansen to get their heads checked.
At the minimum they need to take a long break and start learning statistics.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Jesvin
Had a minute to check Venice water levels: http://www.italyheaven.co.uk/veneto/venice/acqua-alta.html
The issue with Venice seems to have much to do with local factors like rain. "Venice's worst flood ever was a freak event in 1966 where water levels rose to 1.94m and flooded the entire city for a whole day".
I wasn't able to find a dataset that distinguishes the local factors at work in Venice from global factors. Please point me to a scientific paper that studies at least 800 years of data. Venice should be a good case study, being one of the oldest cities in Europe.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Jesvin
Had a minute to check Venice water levels: http://www.italyheaven.co.uk/veneto/venice/acqua-alta.html
The issue with Venice seems to have much to do with local factors like rain. "Venice's worst flood ever was a freak event in 1966 where water levels rose to 1.94m and flooded the entire city for a whole day".
I wasn't able to find a dataset that distinguishes the local factors at work in Venice from global factors. Please point me to a scientific paper that studies at least 800 years of data. Venice should be a good case study, being one of the oldest cities in Europe.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear AG
Before I forget, let me make clear. I have formed my views so far based on wide reading and thinking. I am still open to being persuaded otherwise should an INCONTROVERTIBLE theory buttressed by clear data prove the case. Indeed, I'm clear about the existence of the greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 does heat up the atmosphere. However, the question is to what extent, and how soon. On that, the jury is still out.
I've not shut my mind to science. Just to the lunatic fringe that (currently) is the dominant paradigm.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear AG
Before I forget, let me make clear. I have formed my views so far based on wide reading and thinking. I am still open to being persuaded otherwise should an INCONTROVERTIBLE theory buttressed by clear data prove the case. Indeed, I'm clear about the existence of the greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 does heat up the atmosphere. However, the question is to what extent, and how soon. On that, the jury is still out.
I've not shut my mind to science. Just to the lunatic fringe that (currently) is the dominant paradigm.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sanjeev,
Thank you for your informed, well thought out and polite responses to other posters.
I’m one of the ‘Meteorologists who are most skeptical about..’ camp.
Having worked on 5 continents, including Antarctica and being in the meteorological (specifically aviation meteorology) field for more than 15 years, the nonsense coming out of NASA’s GISS, NOAA/NWS, DoE, DoC, PNNL and a myriad of other federally funded entities who want to continue receiving said federal monies (i.e. tax dollars), they’ll continue the charade, ‘smooth’ and cherry pick ’data’ to meet theirs and their handler’s wanted conclusions.
Sadly, that is the greatest injustice. Mocking and ridiculing the scientific method in which I and many in my field respect greatly. When I read, see and hear of such perverse actions, it’s gut wrenching at times to see science bent to fit one’s means.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your piece. A good day and pleasant week-end to you, Sanjeev.
Kind regards,
Paul
Sanjeev,
Thank you for your informed, well thought out and polite responses to other posters.
I’m one of the ‘Meteorologists who are most skeptical about..’ camp.
Having worked on 5 continents, including Antarctica and being in the meteorological (specifically aviation meteorology) field for more than 15 years, the nonsense coming out of NASA’s GISS, NOAA/NWS, DoE, DoC, PNNL and a myriad of other federally funded entities who want to continue receiving said federal monies (i.e. tax dollars), they’ll continue the charade, ‘smooth’ and cherry pick ’data’ to meet theirs and their handler’s wanted conclusions.
Sadly, that is the greatest injustice. Mocking and ridiculing the scientific method in which I and many in my field respect greatly. When I read, see and hear of such perverse actions, it’s gut wrenching at times to see science bent to fit one’s means.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your piece. A good day and pleasant week-end to you, Sanjeev.
Kind regards,
Paul