I have come to the conclusion that the case for Anthropogenic Climate Change is very weak. The issue may well be formally undecidable (unproveable, even in principle) due to the mathematical characteristics of Chaos Theory.
My reasons for thinking this are several, and the most depressing reason is the defamation of reputable climate scientists such as Judith Curry and her colleagues. My reasoning is simple: If they had a good case, they would present it. Lacking a good case, they resort to defamation and calumny.
Laurie R. King — 'Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind.'
Anthropogenic Climate Change appears to me to be a perfect example of "Pathological Science" or "Junk Science" as defined by Nobel Laureate, Irving Langmuir as given here:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. 3. Claims of great accuracy. 4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience. 5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. 6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity. For example, you might think that if one onion root would affect another due to ultraviolet light, you'd think that by putting on an ultraviolet source of light you could get it to work better. Oh no! OH NO! It had to be just the amount of intensity that's given off by an onion root. Ten onion roots wouldn't do any better than one and it doesn't make any difference about the distance of the source. It doesn't follow any inverse square law or anything as simple as that, and so on. In other words, the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause. That was true in the mitogenetic rays, and it was true in the N-rays. Ten bricks didn't have any more effect than one. It had to be of low intensity. We know why it had to be of low intensity: so that you could fool yourself so easily. Otherwise, it wouldn't work. Davis-Barnes worked just as well when the filament was turned off. They counted scintillations.
Another characteristic thing about them all is that, these observations are near the threshold of visibility of the eyes. Any other sense, I suppose, would work as well. Or many measurements are necessary, many measurements because of very low statistical significance of the results. In the mitogenetic rays particularly it started out by seeing something that was bent. Later on, they would take a hundred onion roots and expose them to something and they would get the average position of all of them to see whether the average had been affected a little bit by an appreciable amount. Or statistical meta-measurements of a very small effect which by taking large numbers were thought to be significant. Now the trouble with that is this. There is a habit with most people, that when measurements of low significance are taken they find means of rejecting data. They are right at the threshold value and there are many reasons why you can discard data. Davis and Barnes were doing that right along. If things were doubtful at all why they would discard them or not discard them depending on whether or not they fit the theory. They didn't know that, but that's the way it worked out.
There are claims of great accuracy. Barnes was going to get the Rydberg constant more accurately than the spectroscopists could. Great sensitivity or great specificity, we'll come across that particularly in the Allison effect.
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. They always had an answer--always.
The ratio of the supporters to the critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. The critics can't reproduce the effects. Only the supporters could do that. In the end, nothing was salvaged. Why should there be? There isn't anything there. There never was. That's characteristic of the effect. Well, I'll go quickly on to some of the other things.
Model predictions have consistently predicted far larger warming than has been observed. Temperature in reality has been consistently much lower than predictions.
It is obvious to anyone with a working brain that the only model that was at all accurate was the lowest line, shown in brown. In Science, the words "model" and "theory" are (usually) synonymous. Science does not average the results of theories. Rather it takes the single best theory and discards the rest. If Climate Science were conducted properly, in accordance with the protocols of Science developed over the past three centuries, all of the models other than the brown one (the most accurate one) would be discarded, and the most accurate model would be used as the baseline for further research. This is true in every other Science except for Climate Science.
This type of thing is not new in Science at all. Langmuir (quoted above) called this "Pathological Science" and discussed it at length in his famous lecture. One key point is that the effect being sought is well below the noise level, as the pictures show. The whole thing is based on alleged temperature changes of tenths of a degree. You cannot even tell me the temperature of the room that you are sitting in (assuming that air is thoroughly mixed with fans) to within one tenth of a degree. If we cannot measure the temperature of a room to one tenth of a degree (and we can't), how can we possibly measure the temperature of an entire planet to one tenth of a degree? We can't.
Climate Change As Pathological Science
Climate Change As Pathological Science
Climate Change As Pathological Science
I have come to the conclusion that the case for Anthropogenic Climate Change is very weak. The issue may well be formally undecidable (unproveable, even in principle) due to the mathematical characteristics of Chaos Theory.
My reasons for thinking this are several, and the most depressing reason is the defamation of reputable climate scientists such as Judith Curry and her colleagues. My reasoning is simple: If they had a good case, they would present it. Lacking a good case, they resort to defamation and calumny.
Laurie R. King — 'Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind.'
Anthropogenic Climate Change appears to me to be a perfect example of "Pathological Science" or "Junk Science" as defined by Nobel Laureate, Irving Langmuir as given here:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm#Characteristic%20Symptoms
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity. For example, you might think that if one onion root would affect another due to ultraviolet light, you'd think that by putting on an ultraviolet source of light you could get it to work better. Oh no! OH NO! It had to be just the amount of intensity that's given off by an onion root. Ten onion roots wouldn't do any better than one and it doesn't make any difference about the distance of the source. It doesn't follow any inverse square law or anything as simple as that, and so on. In other words, the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause. That was true in the mitogenetic rays, and it was true in the N-rays. Ten bricks didn't have any more effect than one. It had to be of low intensity. We know why it had to be of low intensity: so that you could fool yourself so easily. Otherwise, it wouldn't work. Davis-Barnes worked just as well when the filament was turned off. They counted scintillations.
Another characteristic thing about them all is that, these observations are near the threshold of visibility of the eyes. Any other sense, I suppose, would work as well. Or many measurements are necessary, many measurements because of very low statistical significance of the results. In the mitogenetic rays particularly it started out by seeing something that was bent. Later on, they would take a hundred onion roots and expose them to something and they would get the average position of all of them to see whether the average had been affected a little bit by an appreciable amount. Or statistical meta-measurements of a very small effect which by taking large numbers were thought to be significant. Now the trouble with that is this. There is a habit with most people, that when measurements of low significance are taken they find means of rejecting data. They are right at the threshold value and there are many reasons why you can discard data. Davis and Barnes were doing that right along. If things were doubtful at all why they would discard them or not discard them depending on whether or not they fit the theory. They didn't know that, but that's the way it worked out.
There are claims of great accuracy. Barnes was going to get the Rydberg constant more accurately than the spectroscopists could. Great sensitivity or great specificity, we'll come across that particularly in the Allison effect.
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. They always had an answer--always.
The ratio of the supporters to the critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. The critics can't reproduce the effects. Only the supporters could do that. In the end, nothing was salvaged. Why should there be? There isn't anything there. There never was. That's characteristic of the effect. Well, I'll go quickly on to some of the other things.
Model predictions have consistently predicted far larger warming than has been observed. Temperature in reality has been consistently much lower than predictions.
Source: https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/climate-experts-testify-climate-change-projections-are-unreliable-and
It is obvious to anyone with a working brain that the only model that was at all accurate was the lowest line, shown in brown. In Science, the words "model" and "theory" are (usually) synonymous. Science does not average the results of theories. Rather it takes the single best theory and discards the rest. If Climate Science were conducted properly, in accordance with the protocols of Science developed over the past three centuries, all of the models other than the brown one (the most accurate one) would be discarded, and the most accurate model would be used as the baseline for further research. This is true in every other Science except for Climate Science.
This type of thing is not new in Science at all. Langmuir (quoted above) called this "Pathological Science" and discussed it at length in his famous lecture. One key point is that the effect being sought is well below the noise level, as the pictures show. The whole thing is based on alleged temperature changes of tenths of a degree. You cannot even tell me the temperature of the room that you are sitting in (assuming that air is thoroughly mixed with fans) to within one tenth of a degree. If we cannot measure the temperature of a room to one tenth of a degree (and we can't), how can we possibly measure the temperature of an entire planet to one tenth of a degree? We can't.