tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post8856140517057097376..comments2024-03-24T09:28:42.755+01:00Comments on CJ on Mathematics and Science: Judith Curry: From Sick to Healthy Climate ScienceClaes Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-79941787688435730902013-10-03T03:27:39.153+02:002013-10-03T03:27:39.153+02:00Well, even though I'm not an academic scientis...Well, even though I'm not an academic scientist I must be doing something right, I managed to reach the correct conclusion about the IPCC process three years before Dr. Curry and not because I a posses a superior knowledge of the science, but because I can call a spade a spade. I reached this conclusion by watching error after error being exposed in the IPCC process and then watching how the IPCC dealt with those errors. In my observation period of 2007-2010, I found enough evidence that the IPCC could not handle the scientific assessment process entrusted to it to warrant its disbandment.<br /><br />It has been enormously frustrating to watch people much smarter and better educated than myself, become so distracted by the science itself that they cannot reach the correct conclusion - at least until now.<br /><br />I don't know what's going to happen, or how a climate system works; I really don't [but I'm learning!]. Forming my conclusion did not require me to disprove the IPCC's position, or 'prove' mine; it did not even require me to HAVE a position, scientifically speaking. All it required was for me to pay attention to the process as closely as time allows, see who was acting fairly and who was not.<br /><br />Being an 'amatureur' scientist it is my most basic epistemological position that much or most of what I presently know and believe to be true, will eventually be shown to be either incorrect or incomplete, in whole or in part - I just don't know what parts yet, and how big the revisions will have to be. Therefore it is a very dangerous practice for me to try and disprove anyone - I just have to be patient, watch what kind of mistakes people make and how they deal with them.<br /><br />I did not form my come to my conclusion about the IPCC because I have a rampaging paranoid script pathology, which sees all governmental activity as an attempt by so-called 'progressives' to seize power and imprison us all, but because the IPCC process cannot produce a fair assessment of the science in five tries. It does not take a rocket-scientist to figure this out. <br /><br />Why are rocket-scientists having so much trouble with this?<br /><br />The IPCC process is broken, it cannot be trusted even with CORRECT science and should be deconstituted all the same.<br /><br />W^3w.w. wygarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12945551451780264460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-27009215883769170962013-09-29T22:53:17.113+02:002013-09-29T22:53:17.113+02:00Competent scientists knew this long ago. I wrote ...Competent scientists knew this long ago. I wrote the following comment on MasterResource back on February 23, 2011:<br /><br />I agree, the IPCC must go, if science -- not just climate science -- is to take back its credibility from political corrupton. But that is not enough, because the IPCC could not live and prosper without a general weakening of scientific competence, indeed without a raising of false dogma to the level of proof throughout science. Science must begin to regain its intellectual health by repudiating the incompetent scientists who enabled the IPCC, and who continue even now to ride the wave of false consensus that has ensnared all of our scientific institutions (NOAA, NASA, AAAS, APS, etc.), and the public media (including all of the peer-reviewed scientific publications). James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth -- all those who have continued to promulgate AGW in the face of overwhelming evidence against their poor science (including internet bloggers like "Eli Rabett", "ScienceofDoom", skepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, etc.), must be demonstrated to be wrong-headed, and ejected from science. I maintain the proper comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth (as I have done, very simply, in "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect") is the key proof, and an amazing demonstration, of the general wrong-headedness of the climate "consensus". The last generation of students has been taught nonsense masqueraded as "settled science", and a whole new generation is being brainwashed with this dogma (the "greenhouse effect", based upon an incompetent "radiation balance theory" of climate) even now. Until the Venus/Earth data is dispassionately confronted, and admitted by all to be definitive against the current consensus, all scientists are incompetent. That is the unpalatable truth that must be faced.<br /><br />The Venus/Earth comparison is <a href="http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. A VERY simple understanding of it, for children and smugly dismissive "experts", is revealed <a href="http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2013/06/dont-tell-experts.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Bottom line: Judith Curry has been as incompetent, in her dismissal of the Venus/Earth definitive evidence--indeed, in her failure to have uncovered that definitive evidence herself, long ago--as every other climate scientist. Climate science has failed, and it is too late for this generation of climate scientists to save themselves.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.com