AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

It's like a carny game.

The lead writers of these IPCC propaganda compositions TELL you that they're worthless. That they make no predictions WHATSOEVER, and are hence non-falsifiable.

No probabilities even.

No guesses.

NOTHING.

The IPCC assessment isn't nothing. It says that according to the experts on the subject, the earth's climate is warmer now than it would be without man-made contributions.

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”

Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice.

YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”.

Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis.

We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated.

Isn't there an ice age predicted for sometime in the next 20,000 years, for example?

Just to be clear, nothing I've said here was directed at the issue of global warming per se. That IS a scientific issue.

I've been addressing ideology masquerading as science, the sophistic employment of so-called "science," the ease with which people can be manipulated if the magic word "science" is thrown in, and that type of thing, ya know?

In an open letter to the president and officers of the American Physical Society (APS), three prominent members – Roger Cohen, APS fellow; Laurence I. Gould, past-chair of APS New England; and William Happer, a Princeton physicist – argue APS should shelve its 2007 statement on climate change and should not replace it. The members wrote the open letter on behalf of nearly 300 members who signed petitions against the statement in 2009 and 2010.

Cohen, Gould, and Happer argue APS’s climate change statement places the society in the untenable position of defending arguments for human-caused climate change not supported by the best available evidence. They also charge APS’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) with ongoing violations of APS by-laws that require expert input and mandate the organization avoid conflicts of interests.

Instead of securing experts’ input on climate science within the society, the three write, “a small group of firebrand” members with clear conflicts of interest and little expertise in the topic inserted themselves into the drafting process, ultimately shaping APS’s statement with the evident acquiescence of POPA and the APS council.

“The APS issue goes deeper than what is right or wrong in climate science,” Cohen, a distinguished fellow of the Society, told me. “It goes to the integrity of the science process and the trust invested in our scientific institutions. The question at hand is whether science is worthy of the trust the public once conferred upon it, or whether it is just another special interest.”

Where do these "statements of agreement" even come from?

Talking to a proponent of scientism is like arguing with someone who believes that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us from his own wrath by allowing himself to be tortured to death.

1. There are no climatologists who deny that an increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere should result in an increase in the mean temperature of the earth's atmosphere.

Quote:

Yeah! By a 189-1 vote, no less! Based on what, though? Let me look again...git back to ya on that next post.

Nobody seriously disagrees with human induced global warming now, not even to paid-for US government. You are all alone, lay... Even your handlers know better than that.

Nobody seriously disagrees with human induced global warming now, not even to paid-for US government. You are all alone, lay... Even your handlers know better than that.