View Article & Comments

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 249

THE PERVERSION OF SCIENCE

The "Independent" enquiry into the Climategate Enmails has now been published. There is a link to the report at

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/33683/final-inquiry-to-climategate-j-1.asp

The Report endorses and even practices the perversion of the scientific method now so comment amongst the scientific community, which confirmed that there is no scientific evidence for the supposed relationship between climate properties and increased emissions of greenhouse gases

Here is a direct quotation

"5.1 The Scientific Process

4. Scientific hypotheses and theories are presumed to be provisional: they can be refuted by testing but they cannot be verified as correct or true in an absolutesense. Verification is however possible of the results of the experiments upon which theories are built or that attempt to test a theory. If they can be repeated, and produce the same results, they are said to be validated. It is important to recognise that science progresses by substantive challenges based on rigorously logical, published arguments that present a different view of reality from thatwhich they challenge. Criticising and attacking process and behaviour is not thesame as an attack on a scientific hypothesis. Failure in one is not necessarilyfailure in the other.


The reviewing panel, which consisted of a Professor of Geology, a Professor of Physics, and two Engineers, clearly do not understand science.

They do not seem to realize that climate data cannot "be repeated, and produce the same results". Nobody can repeat the measurement of yesterday's temperature or last year's rainfall, so this method of "validation" is impossible.

They are. instead, trying to persuade us, what the IPCC scientists have always assumed, that climate "data" are final, sacred. immutable and completely without uncertainty.

They even demonstrate that they support this idea by downloading the data themselves and getting the same "Temperature anomaly" record (which they believe is a "temperature record") as the one published by the CRU.

It has to be admitted that the science of Geology is not the same as the science of Physics. Much (but not all) of Physics does depend on repeatable experiments, Geology depends on deductions about what may have happened in the past from observations of the present. It cannot be validated"

It is surprising that the two engineers on the panel do not seem to know about the standard method used by engineers to validate computer models of industrial processes. The procedure includes an ability to simulate past circumstances, but no computer model can be used for forecasting unless the ability of the model to make forecasts of future behaviour to an acceptable level of accuracy, over the range of potential use of the model, has been carried out

No such validation process has ever been made for computer models of the climate and the abandonment of the actual term. "validation" and its replacement by "evaluation" demonstrates their acceptance of this fact.

Here is another quote from the Report

"8. Modern digital technologies permit the acquisition and manipulation of very much larger datasets than formerly. To enable proper validation of the conclusions, such datasets must be made freely available, along with details of the associated computational manipulation Its purpose is to produce a 'best estimate‘ of what is currently understood, through the work of a group of scientists chosen for their expertise and experience to make reasoned assessments on the balance of evidence. It is not to produce a review of the scientific literature.

Again they talk of "validation", a procedure which at present is impossible. but they then go on to describe the process used by the IPCC as a substitute for science

Its purpose is to produce a 'best estimate‘ of what is currently understood, through the work of a group of scientists chosen for their expertise and experience to make reasoned assessments on the balance of evidence. It is not to produce a review of the scientific literature.

Thus is not science, but only the opinions of "experts" who have a conflict of interest, as their salaries only get paid if they supply a favourable "reasoned assessments on the balance of evidence" This "evidence" never gets beyond "correlation" (which they call "attribution") which cannot prove causality.

The claim "It is not to produce a review of the scientific literature" is astounding but true. They leave out any serious criticism of what they are doing, such as this Email.

Cheers

Vincent Gray