Apr 7, 2015 at 4:45 PM | M Courtney

+1

Thanks for all the comments. As the one who posed the questions, here is my answer for what it is worth.

Probably the most obvious scientific method failure concerns the models. Generally in science, validation of the model is key, if the model cannot simulate the system it is supposed to recreate, then it is a failed model.

Now, I realise that GCMs are very complex and bits of them may be very useful, but if they fail to predict global temperatures by a long way then they fail as models of global warming, full stop. Why on earth do "scientists" persevere in basing their dire predictions on failed models? Why does the rest of the scientific community accept such ridiculous nonsense?

The models are failed. The more their results are perpetuated the more the science is degraded.

A final thought. With half a dozen comments on the topic and 4 pages spent discussing the troll, it proves that my topic is very boring, but it also proves the value of DNFTT.

The thing that causes most of the disasters is in this world is HUMAN ARROGANCE - just like that from ATTP earlier on in this thread:-

"... I have no interest in allowing people to promote views that are clearly wrong.
Apr 4, 2015 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics"

I wish he'd try to educate himself on all the approximations that have to be done within climate science and look in all the dusty dark corners of physics until he finally understands that not a single solitary thing is completely certain in this world.

Schrodinger's Cat started a useful discussion, but nobody really answered the question
Are climate scientists scientific?
It proceeded with the assumption that everybody knows the meaning of climate science and what qualifies as science in general. Some pointers as to what I believe would make climatology a science.
1. I propose that the subject needs to be able to make meaningful predictive statements about the real world that turn out to be true, despite having the possibility of being false.
2. Climatology needs to distinguish between the trivial statements (CO2 rise is anthropogenic) and the non-trivial (CO2 emissions with lead to a large rise in global average temperature).
3. To understand that a climate model is a set of equations that capture essential elements of the real world. The models (or the basic physics behind them) are not the entirety of reality and are empirically based on imperfect estimates.
4. To distinguish between positive and normative statements. That is between the empirically-based statements about what is and our beliefs about what ought to be.
5. To clearly define the boundaries of the subject. For instance climatologists regards themselves qualified to speak on public policy. This requires an understanding of economics and public policy-making.
6. To learn from others who have thought and argued about the issues for a long time. That is from philosophers of science and great scientists of the past. In economics they have long argued the issues. The conclusion of most was that some sort of methodological pluralism was required.
7. To realise that all climatologists are first of all human beings, who have beliefs and are fallible. We realize that police officers who want to get a terrorist or rapist convicted may have good reasons to bias the evidence, so put in checks and balances.
My comments are mostly the product of studying economics, where there are similar problems of data and beliefs.

I do not believe that climate scientists have been rigorous in checking out the basics of their science and that as the stakes have become ever higher, scientific truth and integrity have become casualties. Politicisation now forces viewpoints with no room for admission of ignorance or uncertainty.

Climatology has become more like a religion. The high priests seem to have power over that which the masses are permitted to believe. Those who do not believe are ridiculed or accused of being evil.

Even writing these words conjures up concerns of a fantasy world, yet that is exactly what climate science has become.