..Whereas CAGW Theory predictions don't seem to get validated.

AGW theory says:

- the planet will warm. Tick.
- the arctic will warm faster. Tick
- the stratosphere will cool. Tick.
- sea levels will rise. Tick.
- glaciers will melt. Tick.
- etc

"AGW theory says: - the planet will warm. Tick. ..."

That's not validation - that's "confirming the consequent".

Problems: AGW theory says:
- The planet will warm faster than it has been observed to do
- The warming will not pause for as long as it has been observed to do
- The Arctic will not warm (due to AGW) nearly as fast as it has been observed to do
- The upper troposphere in the tropics will warm faster than the surface, contrary to observation
- Sea levels would only start rising after AGW became significant/detectable post 1950, rather than post 1850
- Heat conduction through glaciers being negligible, faster flow is more likely precipitation-related
- etc.

It's not about listing all the things a hypothesis predicts correctly, it's about the failure, after trying as hard as you can, to find anything it predicts wrongly.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Scientific theories evolve, and only the fittest survive.

That's not validation - that's "confirming the consequent".

Yes, after looking up what that means, I have to agree. Could that not be said of stewgreen's bacteria too? Or of many experiments?

Scientific theories evolve, and only the fittest survive.

All but AGW, it seems. AGW theory is not allowed to evolve but is held to any utterance issued in its name in the last 50 years. Isn't that how it works with "skeptics"?

I find I can repeat:

Well, there we are. All that work by Darwin, a couple of really thick books, and all you can come up with as a definition is 'some things do better than others'. An observation which applies in every field, ideas, cars, finches, whatever.

You have to have something better. Arguing about whether a plainly obvious pair of statements is a theory, a law or a fact will be fruitless.

rhoda:

There has to be more to it than survival of the fittest and random changes, which is mere obviousology.

Do you think random variation, survival of the fittest and environmental change (selection pressure) are not sufficient conditions for evolution to occur?

You have to have something better.

Why?

"Could that not be said of stewgreen's bacteria too?"

Depends if your hypothesis is that evolution doesn't happen, or that it does.

"Or of many experiments?"

Yes. It's very common.

The failure to falsify a hypothesis is worth reporting - it saves others the effort - but doesn't itself prove anything.

"AGW theory is not allowed to evolve but is held to any utterance issued in its name in the last 50 years. Isn't that how it works with "skeptics"?"

Not with me. I've got no problem with hypotheses being falsified, so long as their falsification is acknowledged by the community. What really gets me is when they deny that an old hypothesis has been falsified when it has, or when they deny that there are problems when there obviously are.

Climate science is a young science, still very much a work in progress. There are going to be lots of proposals and ideas and theories and speculations, and - hopefully - predictions, many of which won't pan out. That's normal. What's not normal is the attempt to portray it as more mature and certain than it is.

Sceptics continue to attack weak points for as long as climate science defends them. If climate science had abandoned the hockeystick as soon as its flaws were detected, their position would be unassailable, scientifically. The fact that there's still been no open public acknowledgement that it was flawed, even today, is why it's still such an active topic of debate. It was seeing their initial response to that particular criticism that made me a sceptic.

That was how Judith Curry got such kudos with sceptics - even though she still adhered to the AGW consensus, she publicly criticised the way climate science was being done when the Climategate emails revealed it. She stuck to pure scientific principle - you don't defend science blindly, you drop results when they've been falsified, coming to correct conclusions by invalid methods is still bad science, and you present the uncertainties honestly. I think she genuinely expected most scientists to speak up the same way. Instead she got ostracized for it.

Scientists are human. So are climate sceptics.

Rhoda

The modern definition of fitness approximates to:

For an individual fitness is the number of copies of their genes passed on to the future gene pool.

IIRC the first to mention this concept was Julian Huxley. In the 1930s he was discussing evolution in a pub. He made a quick calculation on a scrap of paper and then announced

"I will give my life for more than eight cousins."

Each cousin had 1/8 of his genes in common with Dr Huxley.

If he died and nine cousins survived there would be 1 and1/8 copies of his genes in circulation. If he lived and nine cousins died there would only be 1 copy in circulation.

Consider a lion. He was driven out of his original pride by his father.He defeats the resident male of another pride and takes over. The first thing he does is kill all the cubs. This does not matter to him since they are not related to him.

The lionesses then come into season and he father's his own cubs. This maximises the number of his genes in the future gene pool.

The lionesses stay in their original pride and are related. They help their sisters' cubs survive because they share some genes. They maximise their fitness by cooperating.

Consider a worker bee. She does not breed, but she and her worker sisters help other sisters, young queens,, to reproduce. The worker does not maximise her fitness by breeding herself, but by maximising the reproductive success of her breeding sisters.

When you take this approach to fitness a lot of strange things become easier to understand and you can make some predictions.

For example, island populations tend to be smaller than their mainland equivalent. On an island resources are restricted. They can support a larger population of smaller individuals, so genes for small size confers greater fitness and will increase in frequency within an island gene pool.

NiV, yes people don't like to admit they are wrong. I do so here when it happens, but I've not seen self proclaimed skeptics do so. You can be sure that michael hart wont admit that Essex and Mckitrick were wrong or that he was wrong to promote them, even though it is as clear as day (Place Your Betts thread). He'll just slink away and probably use the paper again some time later. Whether Mckitrick ever admitted his paper was wrong I don't know, but McIntyre has spent a decade not admitting that MM05 contained errors (e.g. PC selection).

If skeptics constrained themselves to "weak points" of AGW they might make a useful contribution. But they are just as likely to attack the basics of CO2 radiation theory, the greenhouse effect and whether arithmetic means are the best way to average temperatures, to accuse whole scientific communities of fraud, which guarantees that they are viewed as nutters and at the same time makes it very difficult for anyone to admit error (because it will be jumped as showing that the whole of climate science is a fraud, however trivial).

Oh and the idea that Curry sticks to pure scientific principle will provoke great mirth.

EM, that's more like a theory than the obvious bits which apply to anything in a competitive environment. Except who tells the lion to kill the cubs. He has no concept of gene pools, has he? If he has, jellyfish don't, nor grass. Could the genetic result be an emergent property of the first two obvious statements rather than the basis of the theory?

( Disclaimer. I'm not taking a side, I'm not a trojan horse for ID. Just trying to get it clear what the so-called theory of evolution says and what it does'nt.)

"NiV, yes people don't like to admit they are wrong. I do so here when it happens, but I've not seen self proclaimed skeptics do so."

I've done so, and I've seen others do so. I agree it doesn't happen as often as it should, but it does happen. I tend to give someone a whole lot more credibility when they do. (I was impressed when you did just then, BTW.)

"but McIntyre has spent a decade not admitting that MM05 contained errors (e.g. PC selection)."

Do you mean the number of principal components to pick? He just used the same method Mann used, so far as I know. Do you have something else in mind?

"If skeptics constrained themselves to "weak points" of AGW they might make a useful contribution."

Depends which sceptics you're talking about. Some do.

But I'd still see even more general criticisms of more solid results as useful. The continual opportunity to simplify and refine explanations allows scientists to develop a deeper understanding themselves. Continually testing even well-established results acts as science's "immune system" against the accumulating entropy of error and misunderstanding.

I think Mill explained it best:

The loss of so important an aid to the intelligent and living apprehension of a truth, as is afforded by the necessity of explaining it to, or defending it against, opponents, though not sufficient to outweigh, is no trifling drawback from, the benefit of its universal recognition. Where this advantage can no longer be had, I confess I should like to see the teachers of mankind endeavouring to provide a substitute for it; some contrivance for making the difficulties of the question as present to the learner's consciousness, as if they were pressed upon him by a dissentient champion, eager for his conversion.

"But they are just as likely to attack the basics of CO2 radiation theory, the greenhouse effect and whether arithmetic means are the best way to average temperatures"

Which tells you that you need better explanations. You can never persuade everyone, but you can always do better. If the sceptics aren't as useful as they could be because they don't understand the physics, then educate them! Direct them to the weak points, and give them the data and tools to aid their efforts. If they still fail to knock holes in it, your work gains scientific credibility by leaps and bounds.

It would help a lot if the climate activists hadn't put out an incorrect explanation of those same things in the first place. This is a failing both sides share.

"which guarantees that they are viewed as nutters"

That's OK. The impression given is mutual! Political polarisation always leads to contempt for the other. As it happens I agree, and have said so numerous times here. I don't think the constant carping on radiative physics does sceptics any good politically. However, from a free speech and scientific scepticism point of view, I would still support them doing so.

I don't bother much what people think of me, and rarely indulge in the name-calling. Scientific quality wins out in the end.

"and at the same time makes it very difficult for anyone to admit error (because it will be jumped as showing that the whole of climate science is a fraud, however trivial)."

Ironically, it's precisely this effect that has led to the accusations of fraud. Anyone can make a mistake - everybody does make mistakes. If you correct them, it's temporarily embarrassing, especially if you've previously over-exaggerated your certainty, but it's not fatal. But if you know there's an error and deliberately refuse to correct it, for fear of the political repercussions, that *is* fraud. And if people see you doing it - and they can see independently whether it really is an error whether or not you admit it - the damage done is far more severe.

As I said, it wasn't the fact that errors were made in a paper that gave me the position I have, it was the fact that the rest of the climate science community apparently colluded in denying it, for fear it would give ammunition to sceptics and stymie the political campaign for action, that shocked me. That's politics, not science.

Hey Raff
Now you're back you got it wrong about Australian predators as well, if you didn't see my earlier comment.

Entropic man
Or you could take the Genghis Khan* approach 0.5% of males worldwide.

Not to mention Uí Néill and Giocangga amongst others.

Do you mean the number of principal components to pick?

Yes. Picking 2 because that was the number retained in MBH98 (the paper they were saying did the PCA wrong, was fraudulent, incompetent etc) is a pretty amusing justification.It seems that it is more normal to pick more than two (I've read 5 or 6) and that the significance of the PCs can be tested (I'm not competent to judge and you've doubtless seen discussion of this before). The wiki page on the hockey stick discusses this, though that reference will probably provoke more mirth.

Which tells you that you need better explanations.

Look at how many times these basics have been explained here. People don't seem to want to understand. More explanation brings nothing. That should be clear if you have read the Big Yin explaining radiative physics numerous times.

It would help a lot if the climate activists hadn't put out an incorrect explanation of those same things in the first place.

I don't know what you are referring to but note that activists are not the same as scientists. Activists may very well not understand. They clearly shouldn't be explaining things they don't understand, but that goes for huge amounts of public discourse about everything and is unfixable.

I don't bother much what people think of me, and rarely indulge in the name-calling.

I know what people think of me and it isn't flattering. Then again, I'm not too keen on me either, sometimes. As for name calling, I give as good as I take, I think.

But if you know there's an error and deliberately refuse to correct it, for fear of the political repercussions, that *is* fraud.

See discussion of MM05 above. Can you imagine what damage it would do to skepticism if McI were to admit that he should have retained 5 PCs and that PC4 was a hockey stick? It is not going to happen. Yes, ideally we all stand up and say, I goofed, sorry. In practice it is difficult. Andrew Gelman frequently bemoans researchers responding defensively to criticism instead of accepting it graciously. Sadly it is human nature.

As I said, it wasn't the fact that errors were made in a paper that gave me the position I have,...

What is your position, anyway?

Sandy, yes you are right. As "top predators" go, the devil and thylacine are diminutive compared to lions and wolves. But top is indeed top. If you think your "Nature Will Find A Way" is a better description of evolution than random variation, survival of the fittest and selection pressure, then go with that.

"Yes. Picking 2 because that was the number retained in MBH98 (the paper they were saying did the PCA wrong, was fraudulent, incompetent etc) is a pretty amusing justification."

Depends on your purpose. If the idea is to present a correct analysis as an alternative, then yes. If the aim is simply to illustrate the problems with the existing analysis, then not so much. M&M were always explicit in saying that they were not offering an alternative reconstruction.

"It seems that it is more normal to pick more than two (I've read 5 or 6) and that the significance of the PCs can be tested (I'm not competent to judge and you've doubtless seen discussion of this before)."

Yes, I've seen the discussion. McIntyre discusses the point extensively.

PCA is an analysis method this splits the data into its independent components - everything in the data ends up in some component. McIntyre agrees that the hockeystick appears in PC4 - it's there because the North American bristlecone pines and Gaspe cedars are in the data. They're certainly a real signal - albeit not of climate! The point McIntyre was making was that they're not the strongest signal in the global reconstruction as claimed - they're a weak outlier that appears because a small number of damaged trees from one small part of the world got promoted to greater prominence because of an error in Mann's method.

If you imagine the data is plotted as a cloud of dots in multi-dimensional space, then PCA is like fitting an ellipsoid (like a squashed rugby ball) around the cluster of points. The longest axis of the ball is PC1, the next longest PC2, and so on. The idea is to isolate the common signal showing up in most of the data and eliminate the noise and minor contributors. To fit the ellipsoid, you measure the spread in all directions from the centre of the cluster, but Mann's error was to centre it on a different point - the centre projected onto a subset of coordinate planes. So the axes drawn lined up with this offset, not the data, and the scatter along a very minor axis was interpreted as being the dominant global signal.

You can do significance tests to see if the scatter in some direction is likely to be signal or noise (if you know how the noise is expected to behave) and pick a number of PCs as required. In this case, there's no need. We already know why this particular signal is there - it's because they're sampled from "stripbark bristlecones": trees with the bark stripped off one side of them, causing asymmetric ring growth and a surge in ring thickness on the other side of the tree. It was already known when the original data was first published that they were not correlated with local temperatures where the trees grew - the signal was entirely spurious.

However, getting them included meant that Mann's method, which weighted contributions according to how strongly correlated they were with the 20th century global temperature rise, would up-weight them. The 20th century growth spike correlated with the rising global temperature. So even though they constituted only a small fraction of the data (I don't remember how much, it was something like 5-10%) they got interpreted as the sole temperature-sensitive part of it and used to reconstruct the global temperature. Most of the data had little effect on the final result.

So yes, I agree the bristlecone signal is there in PC4. No, I don't agree that it is an error on McIntyre's part not to have included it.

"Can you imagine what damage it would do to skepticism if McI were to admit that he should have retained 5 PCs and that PC4 was a hockey stick?"

As I recall, he *has* said that PC4 was a hockeystick, and that it doesn't matter if you retain it. You can retain it if you like - the argument is still wrong.

"Look at how many times these basics have been explained here. People don't seem to want to understand. More explanation brings nothing."

Some do and some don't. I've seen quite a lot of feedback from people who *did* find my explanations useful, and it's gained in popularity, even here. Yes, there are still people who don't accept it. That's OK by me - it gives me the opportunity to refine my explanations yet again, and it accords with my principles of scientific scepticism that people should continue to do so. So long as they don't thread bomb every single thread with diversions into this same old topic, I don't mind.

Progress is slow, but there's definite progress.

"What is your position, anyway?"

That the science is new and uncertain. That the magnitude of the feedbacks is substantially unknown, and hence climate sensitivity uncertain. We don't know that it will, but equally, we don't know and certainly can't prove that it won't. That there is sufficient plausibility to the idea to merit funding further investigation, but that its very importance requires a far more professional attitude to data and process quality. That past work has been rather amateurish, but that having being catapulted to global prominence the academics currently entrusted with the work are unwilling to admit now how out of their depth they are, or to admit any failings. And that politics has come to drive the process and the debate, with the politicians and activists using it as a scary 'hobgoblin' to justify their own agenda, their political opponents attacking climate science as a way to weaken that political case, and the scientists stuck in the middle, committed to an untenable position. And if it should so happen that climate change *is* a real risk, we're concentrating on the wrong, most ineffective solutions.

If I believed AGW was likely to be a real catastrophic danger, I'd be furious at any scientist who threatened the integrity or credibility of the science by mucking about in this way. A genuine 'end-of-the-world' scenario demands the most rigorous of scientific standards. As it is, I just regard it as a follow on from all the previous environmental scares. It's the same old political battle that's been going on for the past century.

That's only a brief summary of a complex position. Does it answer your question?

NiV, your interest in the hockey stick and bristlecone pines is greater than mine. As I understand it, if Mann said, "look, using PCA for these studies sucks, tree rings don't tell us squat and those MBH98/99 papers are amateur junk - hey, I was young", few would care very much and little in our understanding of climate would change. Mann did effectively reject PCA, as wiki says:

Mann did not use the PCA step after 2001, his subsequent reconstructions used the RegEM Climate Field Reconstruction technique incorporating all available individual proxy records instead of replacing groups of records with principal components;[126] tests have shown that the results are nearly identical.[127]

On the other hand if McI rejected his body of criticism, skepticism would be badly wounded.

That past work has been rather amateurish,...

i don't know how to judge that. A lot of work is done by post-grads who are of course amateur. That wont change. A lot of work is done by people who have never done such things before because a lot of it has never been done by anyone before. Again, when studying a new field, that is inevitable. Expecting anything else seems unreasonable - even if it were subcontracted to some "professional" company, it would probably be the same, just more expensive.

Are scientists are out of their depth, unable to admit failings or committed to an untenable position? That seems like dog-whistle skeptic rhetoric, not a considered opinion. Any failings they do admit to (like saying what a travesty it is that the missing heat can't be located) are pounced upon, twisted, sliced and diced to justify statements like your "out of their depth" - so there's a strong incentive to be quiet.

And that politics has come to drive the process and the debate, with the politicians and activists using it as a scary 'hobgoblin' to justify their own agenda, ...

My impression is that politicians would prefer that climate change as an issue just went away. They are being dragged reluctantly towards seeming to do something while all the while ensuring that they don't really. The activists doing the dragging are diverse and are as unlikely to agree between themselves on an "agenda" beyond reducing carbon emissions as skeptics are of agreeing between themselves what they actually believe about climate science.

...I'd be furious at any scientist who threatened the integrity or credibility of the science by mucking about in this way

In what way? There are thousands of scientists working in climate related fields, how many are "mucking about" and who are they? Who is controlling or directing their efforts? Where does the buck stop?

That's only a brief summary of a complex position. Does it answer your question?

Well it makes for an interesting discussion :-)

Rhoda

There is no long term plan in evolution, no goals and no divine plan. Natural selection is a short term process, All you have is organisms trying to survive and reproduce one generation at a time.in a dangerous and highly competitive world. For most organisms the dominant factor is luck. Having the optimum genes for being a successful Cod is no help if you are eaten as an egg.

It is only when you look back that the full evolutionary story becomes apparent. It is tempting to see everything from the first amoeba to Rhoda and Entropic man as inevitable, but it is just the one possibility among many which actually emerged. If it were possible to run it again, the outcome would probably be different.

Variations in structure and behaviour arise by random mutation in genes. If the mutation confers an increased probability of successfully reproducing, then the genes concerned tend to become more widespread in future generations.

The lion killing unrelated cubs does not think about fitness. Over many generations lions which killed unrelated cubs had greater reproductive success than those which did not. Whatever genetic mechanism programmed that behaviour become the most common genotype.

For a lot of organisms form follows function. A successful swimmer will be streamlined, whether it is a fish, a whale or a penguin. A successful flyer has wings which are aerodynamically efficient, regardless of their structural origin.

Interesting that you regard evolution and natural selection as obvious. In retrospect they are obvious ( except to creationists ☺).Many scientific ideas are like that, but only after some sharp soul has pointed them out.

There was a time when nobody had even considered the idea, then Darwin and Wallace came up with it.
After first reading Darwin's ideas on natural selection Thomas Henry Huxley, one of the best biologists of the time,was kicking himself for having missed such an obvious idea.

EM, I don't dispute any of what you say. I just think of the two parts of the so-called theory as mere observations. Nothing is predictable, nothing is predicted, success is to be viewed in retrospect, and as you say in the short term. Darwin and the under-appreciated Wallace provided the data and interpreted the observations. But once you know that, and even now when we know more of the mechanism, does it help us? Not much.

Do you really mean the whole of evolution was NOT a plan to produce you and me? I'm shocked and disappointed.

the planet will warm. Tick.
- the arctic will warm faster. Tick
- the stratosphere will cool. Tick.
- sea levels will rise. Tick.
- glaciers will melt. Tick.
- etc

Let me get this straight, AGW theory says the planet will warm if CO2 increases in the atmosphere so let's go over your answers in the light of having the correct description of what the theory says:

The planet will warm. It has, but then it started to warm around 1700AD a long time before there was an appreciable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. CROSS
-The Arctic will warm. Has it? How do we know it's warmer than the 1930s? CROSS
- The Stratosphere will cool. The reason the Stratosphere was forecast as cooling because the Troposphere was supposed to warm up and trap the infrared heat leaving the atmosphere. The troposphere hasn't warmed so if the Stratosphere has cooled it's not because of the theory of AGW. CROSS
- Sea levels will rise. They have but then they've been rising at approximately the same rate for around 8 millennia. CROSS
-The glaciers will melt. Yes the glaciers, not all of them by any means, are melting, but have been since the beginning of the 19th century as we've come out of the Little Ice Age. CROSS

This is why software developers aren't allowed to check their own work.

Rhoda

I know, Evolution is very prosaic and disappointing. We are just another animal, here mostly by luck.☺

Teaching biology in Northern Ireland I encountered many religious creationists who hated the whole idea. They claimed it did not agree with the Bible, but behind that they saw it as an attack on their special place in the world. If evolution was correct, they were no longer the chosen of God, made in his image, given souls and put in charge of the universe.

Geronimo

BEST was set up as an independent check on climate science. They found it was correct.

"They found it was correct."

EM, as the Duke of Wellington said, if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

So BEST was setup by people who were skeptical of the other indices, was funded by people from the climate-science-hating right like the Kochs, was lauded by skeptics such as Watts, who said he'd believe whatever they found, and came to much the same result as everyone else. Whereupon skeptics accepted its results and "skeptics" disowned it.

stewgreen

@Sandy I think the theory of evolution sets out to achieve a lower power of prediction than CAGW
- It does not try to predict exactly what will evolve just that something will evolve etc etc.

I have to agree with that, and in that respect The Theory of Evolution is much more realistic in using data to predict that something will happen but we're not entirely certain what. The theory of Climate Change appears to be proposed by people as dogmatic as Entropic man's religious creationists