Sorry all, I didn't mean to divert this into a discussion on religious models.

It just seemed to me that given (very) limited knowledge a daily creation of a new sun which dies every night is a model which fits the facts as you know them and can be used as evidence to predict the appearance of the Sun tomorrow; with an element of humour thrown in. What it does have in its favour is it's a theory which fits your known facts, rather than a theory hypothesis model looking for evidence.

Other of Mackay's madnesses and delusions are based on little or no evidence too.

SandyS, is that Charles Mackay's "madness of crowds"? [I guess "consensus" would be a more modern terminology.]

I once tried to buy the book as a Christmas present for a relative, but couldn't get a copy in time. Still haven't read it.

You can find the complete Madness of Crowds on the net. You don't need to buy it and Mr. Mackay is way past caring about his copyright.

Big Oil: ‘In what way are things done in the lab not 'real world'?’

I use the term ‘real world’ to mean the non-human world. A chemistry experiment is not the same as a real-world occurrence because, as you say, the former is controlled for variables.

A well-confirmed laboratory experiment can be regarded as a reliable mimicry of a real-world occurrence, but experimentation is ongoing, and not all new processes will be well confirmed.

‘It's a giant leap to go from that to saying that it therefore follows that unvalidated computer models ... produce evidence about the physical world.’

That would be a giant leap, and not one that I have made. As I said, climate models should be regarded as projections. In that case, the evidence of the models supports the projections.

You may think that support worthless. But as in my budget example, we operate on projections a lot, and for making many important decisions.

BigYinJames: ‘Evidence is a physical effect of something happening.’

I think that’s too loose a definition.

Suppose you are walking along the road and a rock falls from the sky. You say to your companion: ‘Well, there’s evidence of something happening’. Your companion says, “Yeah, but evidence of what?’

Evidence isn’t just stuff happening. Evidence is stuff that we regard as support for a claim. Stuff happens all the time, but it only becomes evidence when it’s subject to a particular type of scrutiny: ‘What is that? How does that happen? And so on.

Raff,

I think you would have trouble really believing that any significant part of the population that represent AGW science were acting from religious belief, whereas a belief that many opponents of the science are religious does not seem so far fetched (to me).

You've encapsulated your learned prejudice in a single sentence here. This is what YOU believe, that CAGW is pro-science, and scepticism is anti-science pro-religion. It's not an accident that you think this way, you've been taught to believe that by a series of polemicist activists who cannot win the scientific argument and so have embarked on a long sustained smear campaign instead. Demonizing your enemy is Activism 101.

For some reason you think we're "against the science" here, this is another useful phrase coined by polemicists to set up a mythical enemy that any forward thinking person would agree with. You couldn't be further from the truth. The sheet outrage demonstrated here is precisely because we feel we're the torch-bearers for the real spirit of science.

Science by consensus? Bollocks. No such thing. Science by authority? I feel a bit of sick in the back of my throat. Science by withholding data that supports papers and refusing requests for data and code? "Why should I give you the data just so you can prove me wrong?" - that's evil. Science has been subverted... oh I'm sure because the perpetrators thought the issue was so serious that normal protocols simply had to be bypassed... noble cause corruption. But it has still perverted the scientific method beyond all recognition, and for that they must be defeated.

Have you actually looked into the origins of this site, why it was set up? Have you read the Bish's book, or read any articles on Steve Mc's site? Or are you like the committed Christian I once knew who simply refused to read any books which might challenge his beloved prejudices because he loved the idea of what he believed so much that he didn't want to risk being de-converted? This site has its origins in HARD science, statistics and the mainstream. It was the poor, cliquey, unscientific behaviour of some of the prime players that caused this. Go read, it's fascinating.

Now Raff, you can continue to believe that scepticism is an outpost for right-wing religious fundies. Examine that belief though, make sure you don't believe it simply because it makes a good fiction that strokes your philosophical fur. Everyone likes to believe they are on the side of right in some pan-planetary good against evil struggle, they do it here too. But it's almost always crapola, as it is here.

Over my years here I've made real-life contact with many of the people here - rocket scientists, research scientists working in UK universities, people working for the Met Office, ordinary engineers and technicians, loads of coders. I've never yet met one of those people you say we all are. (Try WUWT, that's where they live)

It's a myth - the same way that the myth of the evil activist scientist working for the communists for the ruin of western capitalism is a myth. People love myths.

If you are too attached to your myth that we're all fundies here, then I've tried my best to convince you, I can do no more.

Raff is a believer in the CAGW religion. Phrases such as 'opponents of science' confirm it. Religious believers are not going to be convinced by rational argument.

Don't waste valuable binary digits.

Mickey

Models then could be used to support a case - they may even be called evidence.

You may call them what you like, but they are NOT evidence.

TheBigYimJames

You may call them what you like, but they are NOT evidence.

How about a security blanket?

"I've never yet met one of those people you say we all are. (Try WUWT, that's where they live)"

TBYJ, there is no real separation between supposed science-loving people here and WUWT. You can easily find links people here have posted to articles there that they think you should read. There are clearly those here who read, like and recommend WUWT. How many? I don't know, but I see no evidence that anyone but you opposes that site.

That, in a nutshell, is why I don't believe for a minute that those here are so outraged by supposed abuses of science. If they were, they would be repulsed by the anti-science nonsense at WUWT. The closest I get is HotWhopper.

As for science being "subverted" that is just conspiracy talk from more than a decade ago and is of no substance. It is a myth just like those you discuss, but one that has a hold of you in the same way you think I am afflicted. Yes I have read McI but I find his accusatory tone and incredible nitpicking offputting. I skimmed HSI in a shop but I didn't buy it.

You're wrong raff. Some scientists at the heart of the whole CAGW alarmist movement are in this for personal career advancement. They are wicked in the proper sense of the word, and their time will come, even if it's only in the history books. It's not conspiracy theory from a decade ago, it was true then, it was confirmed by Climategate. If you are too afraid to read it, and wish to dismiss it as nonsense, that's your lookout. I prefer to face things I don't like.

For "incredible nitpicking" read "attention to detail". I can see why you don't want the detail attended to, because that is always where the devil resides, and the detail is where all of climate science resides.

You can believe what you like about us. A wise man once said you can't talk someone out of a point of view they weren't talked into. I believe that applies to you. But remember one thing. Many of us here were one like you, we have been where you are. You have not been where we are.

I think we're done raff. You may return to what you consider the good work of jabbing pointy sticks through the bars here.

Name a field, any field, where nobody is in it for "personal career advancement". Then tell me what is wrong with that.

Then name those you consider wicked. Note that there are thousands of climate science researchers so to make any substantive statement your list had better have a few hundred names at the very least.

McI's MO is nitpicking. It indicates that he can find nothing seriously wrong and has to resort to picking fluff.

But come on, you brought up WUWT, if it is so full of nutters ("Try WUWT, that's where they live") why do people here not get outraged by its continual abuse of science instead of visiting it and quoting it? That alone tells me that science is not important here. Maybe you don't belong here if it is important to you.

DNFTT

TBYJ you are a rum character, You are happy lecturing about the one true meaning of a word and you casually insult me by comparing my acceptance of scientific consensus with Aztec belief in ripping out hearts, yet you become enraged when I deliver an insult in return. You claim to have found skuldugery in the world of science and proclaim science as your and everybody's one true love and yet when asked to provide some evidence for your claims (which should be easy as it enrages you so) and to account for your co-sceptics apparent love for that which you disdain (anti-science WUWT) you retreat under cover of not talking to "trolls". I think the contradictions of the position you are trying to maintain are causing deep inner conflicts. Give it up.

Martin you also puzzle me. You come across as highly inteligent but I have the feeling that you know next to nothing about nature or ecosystems. And your sudden silence on things that you seemed interested in discussing makes me think you lack confidence in your own opinion.

RKS
It's true you did, and you were right. BB Mk2 despite contrary opinions.

Yes RKS, sorry about that :)

In my defence - nullius in verbia - so I took your theory, and tested it against reality.
I found your theory proven, with a 95% confidence level. I think 97% of all thread
participants now agree there is a consensus in this.