Friday
Jun182010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Christy on the IPCC
Jun 18, 2010 Climate: IPCC Steve M posted a link to the audio of John Christy's presentation to the Interacademies Council a couple of days ago. For those of us who prefer the written word, Marcel Crok has now posted a transcript. You need to scroll through the Dutch to get to Christy's words in English.
I liked this bit:
A fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies.
Reader Comments (8)
In other words, Its not Science!
There's much to like in Christy's presentation. You can almost hear the creaking chairs as the IPCC elite shift uncomfortably under the weight of Christy's words. The word "busted" springs irresistibly to mind.
The natural theory of climate, a truly chaotic system, has been abandoned by a generation of scientists who have pursued the certainty of a cause.
Jesuit priests studied the heavens in great detail, but their super-natural beliefs prevented them from removing humanity from the centre of the universe. It was left to others to discredit the notion that the planets revolved around the salvation of our souls.
Modern climate science has reintroduced superstition back into the heart of science. Moral theology has come back big time. If the planet is to be saved humans must confess their earthly sins and mend their ways.
Science will come to regret this huge backward step to the Dark Ages.
What does 'climate science' seem to include? Here's a partial list: physical sciences (physics, chemistry, and direct offshoots), life sciences (biology, botany), social science, political science, astronomy, meteorology, climatology, computing, economics, and geography It is a veritable playground of some noisiness and indiscipline.
I think Mac has it about right. Once upon a time, "learned men" (women were excluded) sat around arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Little has changed except women are now allowed to make damn fools of themselves as well.
This is the most powerful critique and assessment of the IPCC process I have so far seen. I have copied it and will make it as widely known as I can. I suggest others do likewise.
We have made this point for some years now: "Climate studies" are not an empirical, experimental discipline, but a classificatory/schematic exercise akin to botany. Because Earth's atmosphere ("climate" is a misnomer) by definition is not amenable to falsifiable hypotheses, climate hysterics' self-referential models apply only in hindsight. Skewed samples, invalid statistical techniques, manipulated and subjective (mis)interpretations are necessarily such propagandists' stock-in-trade. Anyone who grants the peculating Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. the slightest credibility has only himself to blame.
"As an emerging science...": there's no reason to suppose that a Science is going to emerge from this particular midden.