tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Definitely not my intention to mislead. I think there is not enough detail to say either way. Discussions like these aren't scientific discussions, not even close. In general I can see both of your point of views.
In a non-scientific debate Green could argue that by looking at the overwhelming evidence presented by scientists it is plain to see that we have an impact, and for us who aren't specialists at climatology it makes little sense to discuss details. Obviously part of the issue is that a climatologist does work in details and provide part of the overall picture. If one of those parts fail, it MAY (not necessarily) falsify the model. The most common path is that the model is adjusted as most of these details aren't significant enough to fully invalidate the model.
A model is a simplified version of reality that does a job of predicting. If I say given all the variables the model predicts a future value of 10 and the future value ends up being 9, then it does not mean my model is wrong it means we need to look at how the model was inaccurate, and how we can improve. The way climatology works is that our models improve radically with available data, and maturation of models. This development is has been radical in the last decade.
When that is said, our perception usually is the big picture as the models are refined the predictions improve and our overall big picture becomes more correct. Not sure if that explains how I think you both are right? I do agree with Green makes little sense for us to argue details on the models because neither of us are climatologists, because MM's "evidence" / of points of contention supplied are usually nonsense and really not worth anyone's time. I do agree that a climate scientist would normally not argue just big picture. On the other side one of the first checks you put on a project is face validity which is basically a heuristic sense to see if the model is measuring what it is supposed to measure.
I guess that was a pretty long answer to your question.
Excellent answer and you have avoided checkmate in a manner that I did not expect. Now, I will do my damndest to get your hand off the king and get on with the end of the game.
tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Definitely not my intention to mislead. I think there is not enough detail to say either way. Discussions like these aren't scientific discussions, not even close. In general I can see both of your point of views.
Are you implying that there is no answer to my question of whether science would ignore the details and just look at the big picture?
tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
In a non-scientific debate Green could argue that by looking at the overwhelming evidence presented by scientists it is plain to see that we have an impact, and for us who aren't specialists at climatology it makes little sense to discuss details.
So you believe there is an authority that we should cede all power in decision making, as well as debate and discovery, to, for the reasoning that we cannot possibly understand said issues beyond our own credentialed level of expertise?
tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Obviously part of the issue is that a climatologist does work in details and provide part of the overall picture. If one of those parts fail, it MAY (not necessarily) falsify the model.
What specifically, does one of those parts (or in this case, many) failing indicate to you as a scientist? What would you say about a model that can be given slightly different inputs in unknown (required) fields, to produce any outcome you wish?
tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
The way climatology works is that our models improve radically with available data, and maturation of models. This development is has been radical in the last decade.
As a scientist, would you say that radical development in understanding is most often correlated to being extremely close to infancy in understanding? Yes, I know, not exactly scientific despite the "sciency" words, but
you can see the "big picture" as you stated Greenturtle and I are both somewhat right. So what does the big picture say about "radical development" in relation to understanding at the time of said radical development?
tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
When that is said, our perception usually is the big picture as the models are refined the predictions improve and our overall big picture becomes more correct.
Now when you say "more correct", are you referring to achieving proof of your desired outcome? If so, this is the least "sciency" thing-a-ma-bob you could use as a narrative of how science works. THERE IS NO "MORE CORRECT!" There can be
more accurate. There can be
more complete. There can be
more detailed. The answer exists to be discovered, what ever it is. It is only correct once we find out what the answer is, and then put its question on a test for someone to get "correct". Unfortunately at this point in our understanding, we cannot say what the answer is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
I do agree with Green makes little sense for us to argue details on the models because neither of us are climatologists, because MM's "evidence" / of points of contention supplied are usually nonsense and really not worth anyone's time.
"Usually nonsense" would indicate you have knowledge of at least an instance or two where M&M has actually been correct in his cited evidence against negatively impactful anthropogenic global climate change. Would you care to tell which ones, or would that lead us away from a "more correct" model?
tautologies wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
I do agree that a climate scientist would normally not argue just big picture. On the other side one of the first checks you put on a project is face validity which is basically a heuristic sense to see if the model is measuring what it is supposed to measure.
And your hand comes off the king after you moved but........you try to put it right back on. Still I'm gonna claim checkmate, if I may?
And on top of it all, we seemed to have lost M&M in this discussion. Ironically, the discussion is mostly about him, and those religiously opposed to his views as much as he is to theirs.