Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
The Climate Bet – April 29, 2008
You may be aware of the current personal campaign that I am engaged with regarding what I consider to be improper behavior at RealClimate. The authors of that site decided to bet the authors of a scientific paper. I do not feel that is responsible behavior but in my efforts to convince them I wanted to try and find other scientific bets that fall into their category of bet (largely financial v. gentleman’s bet). To date I have failed in that search, I did find some interesting gems to share with you.
While I have failed to find a credible “big bet” that falls into the RealClimate fiasco, it didn’t take long in my research for me to stumble on this article at “The Climate Bet” and wanted to share it with you. As many of my longtime readers know, I feel that we can do a better job of computational models. In this video clip, Dr. Kesten Green of Monash University does a fairly credible job of casting doubt on the IPCC predictions that are based on these models. He even concludes that the IPCC has violated many of the appropriate methodologies that are required to come to this conclusion.
The quotes below the video are from The Global Warming Challenge:
Kesten Green claims that the IPCC climate models incorporate just 15% of the principles and procedures appropriate to scientific forecasting. Many IPCC scientists seem to be unaware of forecasting methodology as a scientific discipline, he adds. Instead, the Monash University specialist charges that the models’ elaborate mathematical formulas reflect the IPCC staff’s own opinions at both the input and output stages.
This discussion is in keeping with the current controversy I am having with RealClimate. The scientific paper in question is, at its core, a discussion of the proper boundary conditions and influences of natural events on climate models. These are the same models that Mr. Green calls a “black box” and led to poor predictions of IPCC. Discussion of these models is paramount to the understanding of global warming and forcing down dissenters by forcing scientists to defend their studies with their bank account is unacceptable.
Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.climate models, corn, forecast, IPCC, prediction, RealClimate, scientists, skeptic