Not to defend Monckton (who is perfectly capable of defending himself on
any climate related technical subject) but rejecting the current climate
"consensus" doesn't necessarily require a deep understanding of climate
related scientific disciplines. Just a bit of understanding of chaos
theory and maybe some statistics thrown in.
All of the "bad" consequences of warming are the long range predictions
of about 20 major climate models. None of these models agree between
themselves and none has ever been shown to make an accurate hindcast let
alone a forecast. If you believe (as I do) that the earth's climate is
a chaotic system then trying to forecast climate 50 or 100 years into
the future is a futile exercise. Also, if you have ever tried to make
even a simple forecasting system (as I did in my foolish youth) you soon
learn that you can force fit almost anything in the universe with a
polynomial having enough degrees of freedom. The problem is that such
fancy fitting is senseless in a chaotic system since such a model's
ability to predict anything with any degree of certainty is really
non-existent. Climate models have hundreds or thousands of
parameters... all tunable by the model builder... and still very
incomplete. Of course, the model builder doesn't believe that climate
is a chaotic system. If it is chaotic his reason for existence goes
away. And, of course, he doesn't have to stand behind his predictions
of 100 years into the future since he won't be here.
Here's noted Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson on climate modeling:
<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html>
On the subject of statistics, climate science depends very heavily on
statistical manipulation of raw data. The video I pointed out recently
from Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/you%E2%80%99re-not-allowed-to-do-this-in-science/>
shows that Muller is extremely upset with the "hockey stick" graph by
the chicanery employed at the juncture of paleoclimate temperature
reconstructions (mostly from tree rings) and the modern thermometer
based temperature records. But that is hardly all that's wrong with that
graph. The paleoclimate temperature reconstructions are highly suspect
and the statistical methods used to do the analysis (Principal
Components) have been declared invalid by several prominent
statisticians. Michael Mann (the author) has never revealed the details
of his analysis and has (despite repeated requests over years) never
disclosed the correlation values he previously claimed to have computed.
Little wonder because, now that the data is available (like pulling
teeth) the correlation values with temperature are shown to be so low
that he would have gotten better results by choosing random "red noise"
numbers. If you'd like a detailed analysis you might like to read this.
<http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf>
This is a 12 page PDF. A little statistical training would be helpful
but not necessary to at least understand the gist of the situation.
Muller is also mentioned in this paper since it was studying this data
that convinced Muller that he had been deceived. Unfortunately, it's
not only Muller who has been deceived. This graph has been and
continues to be the posterchild of the IPCC's claims of dangerous global
warming. If you value the truth in scientific method you'll take the
time to read these 12 pages.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/7/2011 7:21 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Piers wrote:
>
>> If you think that, Brian, then you should correct the scurrilous and
>> biased gossip, fill in the omissions and correct the inaccuracies, as they
>> were not obvious to this reader!
>>
>> Did he in fact _not_ gain a Classics degree from Cambridge and a diploma
>> in journalism from Cardiff?
>
> If ever I get his e-mail address I might suggest that he himself do the
> corrections.
>
> During his talk he mentioned gaining a qualification in Architecture, and in
> the course of using it, he also used Calculus making the point that had he
> not done so, he could not have been sure that the buildings he designed
> stayed erect. I have yet to get to this part of his talk in my transcriptions
> to
> be quite sure on this. ... but I think the term he used was Classical
> Architecture. I don't know what goes on in - went on - in Classics degrees at
> Cambridge when he was there. It crosses my mind that perhaps he was
> required to design classical buildings in those studies.
>
> In any case I was upset by the lack of mention of his education in
> architecture. Perhaps he exaggerated, or at least didn't disclose the context
> of his architectural education.
>
> I am in no position to confirm or deny what wikipedia says as far as they
> have, ie "Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College,
> Cambridge, where he received an MA in classics in 1974, and at University
> College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism studies.".
>
> Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|