Climategate: Totally <bleeping> Awesome!

[Diuretic]

If there was a gold medal in "jumping to conclusions" then there would be a real tussle to get it.

The inquiry into what actually happened, not what everyone thinks happened, isn't over. When it is we'll have a better idea of how, if at all, the science on this issue has been damaged.

Dealing with the future always involves dealing with uncertainty &#8211; and this is as true with climate as it is with the economy. Science has led to a great deal of well-supported concern that increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society. Playing rhetorical games in the face of this, while momentarily satisfying for blog commenters, is no answer at all to the real issues we face.

RealClimate: Unsettled Science

 

[namvet]

wonder if Gore is still wasting energy ????

 

[Oddball]

If there was a gold medal in "jumping to conclusions" then there would be a real tussle to get it.

The inquiry into what actually happened, not what everyone thinks happened, isn't over. When it is we'll have a better idea of how, if at all, the science on this issue has been damaged.

Dealing with the future always involves dealing with uncertainty &#8211; and this is as true with climate as it is with the economy. Science has led to a great deal of well-supported concern that increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society. Playing rhetorical games in the face of this, while momentarily satisfying for blog commenters, is no answer at all to the real issues we face.

RealClimate: Unsettled Science

RealClimate: The HuffnpuffPo of the AGW nut cult.

 

[Si modo]

If there was a gold medal in "jumping to conclusions" then there would be a real tussle to get it.

The inquiry into what actually happened, not what everyone thinks happened, isn't over. When it is we'll have a better idea of how, if at all, the science on this issue has been damaged.

Dealing with the future always involves dealing with uncertainty &#8211; and this is as true with climate as it is with the economy. Science has led to a great deal of well-supported concern that increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society. Playing rhetorical games in the face of this, while momentarily satisfying for blog commenters, is no answer at all to the real issues we face.

RealClimate: Unsettled Science

There is little scientific about models for which there exists no dataset, hypothetical or otherwise, for which the model is inconsistent, as is the case for most of the predictive models. That means the model is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific.

 

[elvis]

And the denial movement is led by those vested interests who stand to lose money.

Care to clue us all in to who this involved in this "denial movement" and how it is organized?

Cui bono

same could be said for al whore and those who have investments in alternative energy.

 

[Diuretic]

If there was a gold medal in "jumping to conclusions" then there would be a real tussle to get it.

The inquiry into what actually happened, not what everyone thinks happened, isn't over. When it is we'll have a better idea of how, if at all, the science on this issue has been damaged.

Dealing with the future always involves dealing with uncertainty &#8211; and this is as true with climate as it is with the economy. Science has led to a great deal of well-supported concern that increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society. Playing rhetorical games in the face of this, while momentarily satisfying for blog commenters, is no answer at all to the real issues we face.

RealClimate: Unsettled Science

There is little scientific about models for which there exists no dataset, hypothetical or otherwise, for which the model is inconsistent, as is the case for most of the predictive models. That means the model is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific.

Yes it does, if unfalsifiability is important, which it is in the Popperian view. Anyway my point was that much has been claimed by those who oppose the idea that humans are contributing to global climate change, when not much is known about what really happened at EAU. I'll be interested to see the outcome and exactly what happens to the science being practised.

 

[Diuretic]

Care to clue us all in to who this involved in this "denial movement" and how it is organized?

Cui bono

same could be said for al whore and those who have investments in alternative energy.

Of course it can, yes.

 

[Si modo]

If there was a gold medal in "jumping to conclusions" then there would be a real tussle to get it.

The inquiry into what actually happened, not what everyone thinks happened, isn't over. When it is we'll have a better idea of how, if at all, the science on this issue has been damaged.



RealClimate: Unsettled Science

There is little scientific about models for which there exists no dataset, hypothetical or otherwise, for which the model is inconsistent, as is the case for most of the predictive models. That means the model is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific.

Yes it does, if unfalsifiability is important, which it is in the Popperian view. Anyway my point was that much has been claimed by those who oppose the idea that humans are contributing to global climate change, when not much is known about what really happened at EAU. I'll be interested to see the outcome and exactly what happens to the science being practised.

Irrespective of this current scandal, few of the predictive models (the ones compiled by the 3rd IPCC assessment report) are scientific for lack of falsifiability. The science was stinky long before this scandal.

 

[Diuretic]

There is little scientific about models for which there exists no dataset, hypothetical or otherwise, for which the model is inconsistent, as is the case for most of the predictive models. That means the model is unfalsifiable, thus unscientific.

Yes it does, if unfalsifiability is important, which it is in the Popperian view. Anyway my point was that much has been claimed by those who oppose the idea that humans are contributing to global climate change, when not much is known about what really happened at EAU. I'll be interested to see the outcome and exactly what happens to the science being practised.

Irrespective of this current scandal, few of the predictive models (the ones compiled by the 3rd IPCC assessment report) are scientific for lack of falsifiability. The science was stinky long before this scandal.

They're not falsifiable. Okay, I have to accept that because I've insisted on that in previous comments. If the science is bad then it should be exposed as being bad. I'll look forward to that happening.